Inside the Texas Capitol

Todd Smith has filed HR 2669 and 2671

2007-05-24T14:38:00.000-05:00

Over the past two weeks, there has been a lot of talkin without a lot of walkin over a new Speaker's race. Quorum Report has followed some of the pork Craddick has given to certain districts, the daily blogs report that latest gossip, and Paul Burka has predicated that every member will run for Speaker.

There's been speculation as to whether this would happen by next session or before Sine Die, and Byron Cook even made a passionate speech about tyranny and Hell that was followed by a pretty loud thud. Patrick Rose walked away from the Speaker, taking Eddie Lucio III with him, only to discover that the other candidates didn't want his support, so he returned to Craddick on his knees, who in turn told him not to let the door hit his ass on the way out. And Dukes never left Craddick's side.

Today, however, Republican Todd Smith filed two resolutions, HR 2669 and HR 2671, today May 24, that would vacate the speaker and hold a new election. HR 2669 would provide that each ballot contain the member's name, and HR 2671 would provide a secret ballot.

Why Todd Smith? When Craddick and Jimmy Leininger did a push poll in his district a year ago to see if he was vulnerable, Smith retorted: "This is the robotization of the Republican Party. If you are not prepared to read off of a pre-approved script, you need not apply."

Word has it that Saturday afternoon could be the time, well after what Cook and Rose had predicted. So far, there are a total of five candidates: the incumbent Craddick, Jim Keffer, Jim Pitts, Brian McCall, and Fred Hill, but right now it's tough to say who has it.

New PACs are formed every day, but there's a new one, Ronald Reagan Republicans for Local Community Control and Speaker Term Limits, that would pull in money for Republicans not on the Speaker's agenda and would give cover to Byron Cook and presumably Todd Smith.

In terms of the best strategy, it's obvious that the insurgency wouldn't be anything more than ceremonial now, so when would be the best time to pull the trigger? Before Sine Die? Or just focus on the next election cycle, when more moderate Rs/more Ds will be pulled in? It's obvious that anti-Craddick PACs will be formed regardless of what happens over the next five days, but Rs may be concerned about Craddick adding that zero to his war chest, so the less power (real or perceived) he has over the next 18 months, the better chance he won't be Speaker next session.

But given that it's clear there's no clear consensus since no one had the votes a few days ago when Rose was shopping his nomination speech, I wouldn't be surprised if the moderates are as disappointed at the end of the session as much as they were at the beginning.

It has been a busy week

2007-05-10T16:23:00.000-05:00

Too busy, in fact, for me to write anything. Hopefully I'll recoup over the weekend. Here's some links:

Grits on Needle Exchange bill, which is coming up Monday in the House Pub Health Committee. Chair Delisi once vowed to never let it out of committee, but her willingness to give it a hearing shows it's still alive.

Gov. Perry overturns his own HPV order

Rep. Paul Moreno retires

Grits on in-state tuition for illegal immigrants, which was killed on a point of order by Rep. Merritt. Zedler has another bill up today, HB 904, which would have the state inappropriately enforce federal immigration law. HB 904 would restrict funding for day labor centers.

And last but not least, Craddick Crashing?

It'll be a busy couple of days

2007-05-07T11:07:00.000-05:00

Now that most of the religious debates are finally over, the House will now hear 140 bills over today and tomorrow. Well, they actually have no chance in hell getting through them, but that's what's on the Calendar. Here's a brief look at what to expect at some point in the near future:

HB 9 Rep. Crownover's bill to ban smoking across the state. Although there are merits to this argument, I've always been a big fan of improved ventilation systems in bars and restaurants in lieu of telling them how to act. I'm not a smoker and can't stand the smell on my clothes, but smokers should be able to enjoy smoke over a beer.

This may take a while since Rep. Dutton is fighting hard to gut the bill, and he's run into Rep. Hartnett who's apparently been talking to owners of cigar bars and flip flopping on where he stands. But Capitol Letters has this insight:

Crownover's calling it an "employee safety measure" - which I suppose is a little true. But really, what it's about is levelling the playing field. The places in the cities that are banning smoking are losing business to the places that haven't, just a city limit away.

THAT'S why the restaurants got on board.

HB 1927 The tort reform bill for the MTBE fuel additive by Rep. Chisum. The federal government at one point mandated that oil refineries add a substance called MTBE to fuel in an attempt to clean it. However, the way it was carried out polluted groundwater wells across the country, and à la Erin Brockovich, people began suing responsible parties. Rep. Chisum stepped in to cut back on the number of lawsuits.

There's one small twist to this: many small, independent gas stations are technically responsible for leaking the fuel additive, but there's evidence that they had no way of knowing about it, let alone how to stop it. But, this doesn't change the end result - polluted groundwater - and the appropriate answer should be a join effort to clean it, not to protect some from liability and absolve them of responsibility.

HB 2006 The omnibus eminent domain bill by Rep. Woolley that's designed to grant more property rights to private landowners. It's continuing the work of SB 7, which was passed in response to the June 2005 SCOTUS decision. Rep. Woolley says that she doesn't want to stop eminent domain, she only wants to encourage agreements and negotiations before any eminent domain.

I'm guessing this will be a big ol' Christmas tree with all the rural folk trying to tack on amendments for local fights. Remember Rep. Oliveira tacking one on to SB 7 to prevent UT-Austin from leveling a hamburger joint?

HB 13 The omnibus homeland security bill by Rep. Swinford that is structured to run more federal money and power through the Governor's office, which Swinford claims is required by federal statute. Grits has more, including some stats that Rep. Noriega plans to distro on the floor.

Grits was widely cited on other blogs for his post on Swinford pandering to the Governor and a deal he struck with Congressman Culberson that may or may not even pan out.

Parks up for debate today

2007-05-02T11:31:00.000-05:00

About five or six weeks ago, I asked the question: Are the parks bills on the move or not? The answer is that one finally is. (Editor's note: follow the link for more background on the bills)

HB 12 is the omnibus parks bill that combines the two other parks bills in Calendars, and it is up today on the Major State Calendar. Rep. Hilderbran has cut the number of sites to be transferred from 21 down to 18, but much of the rest of the parks transfer to the Texas Historical Commission remains the same.

There will be a number of amendments up today, but the future of the bill remains to be seen: there is question as to whether opponents of HB 7 (basically anyone not on the Speaker's agenda -- the main mover and shaker behind the transfer idea) will try to pull the bill down (since HB 6 is in Calendars) or try to cut HB 7 out of the bill (or maybe just replace it with an interim study, a move that was tried in committee).

There's one provision that expands inmate labor for park maintenance that will be fought against hard, and leadership may actually relent on this one since they were hoping it'd just fly under the radar. But if provisions like are removed, it could be hard to pull the entire bill down.

Proof of Citizenship...compromise?

2007-04-30T18:16:00.000-05:00

Today, the impeccable Phil King offered up a substitute for the Proof of Citizenship bill, HB 626, which would water down much of the rhetoric we heard last week on the floor. Instead of spending $220 for fresh copies of naturalization papers, the bill would now simply make the Secretary of State vet birth certificates and naturalization papers when cross-checking voter registration applications with social security and drivers license records.

BurkaBlog reported on it this morning, and Kuff picked it up as well. Whether Anchia, Gallego, and Hochberg sign off on it or not wouldn't change the fact that if the Secretary of State can't find the naturalization papers, then s/he wouldn't approve the registration, hence the application is dropped. From how I'm reading it, it's not much of a compromise since it doesn't change much of what King asked for in the version he laid out last week.

Week in Review

2007-04-27T16:21:00.000-05:00

It's been a long week, and it's now Friday afternoon, so I'll direct you to a few other links that can summize the week.

Kuff on finally passing the Systems Benefit Fund

TX Observer: Let Them Eat Nukes, which was the first blog post I can ever remember being mentioned on the floor by name.

Capitol Annex on the Anti-Abortion bill on a bill that was passed out 4-2, which can't happen, so it's dead in committee. Only a dissenting member, in this case Veasey or Farrar, can ask for a re-vote, which I'm guessing won't happen.

Now the Tom Delay bill is up

2007-04-24T14:05:00.000-05:00

Previously, I'd posted that HB 2492 is a bill that could help Tom Delay's case if he's able to delay it until September 1, 2007, the enactment date of the legislation. A commenter caught the fact that HB 2492 was actually something different, so I took the post down.

However, as I always like to be right - however few and far in between - and say that today's Calendar has HB 2491, also by Leo Berman, which is in fact the bill I originally wanted to reference.

This would allow for corporations and unions to pay for office space, telephones, and salaries of administrative personnel, etc., but would restrict any expenditures from those organizations on political consulting, telephone banks, political fundraising, etc.

My last post was entitled "Tom Delay bill quietly passes." Word on the street is that this bill won't pass so quietly, and many corporations and unions are scrambling to get in some amendments. I can't speak to specifics, but look for it today on the House floor.

Voter ID bills coming to the floor

2007-04-23T14:02:00.000-05:00

Betty Brown just brought up HB 218, which is the first of two voting rights bills to come up for debate today. The other is HB 626 by Phil King.

HB 218 would require additional forms of identification in order to vote to combat voter fraud, but it is more tailored to voter impersonation. Texas currently requires voter identification at the polls in the form of a voter registration card, photo or non-photo identification. What HB 218 intends to target is the identification of dead people (maybe even still-borns) being used illegally by others to vote. However, the Secretary of State and the Attorney General's office have produced zero cases of fraud. Betty Brown claims to have some cases forwarded on from counties, but after investigation from state offices, there's no vetted research to show that voter fraud's nothing more than simply alleged.

HB 626 would require proof of citizenship. For U.S. citizens, costs of such proof is small: a new copy of a birth certificate is a mere $23. However, if you're a naturalized citizen, an extra copy of your naturalization certificate is $220. A new copy of the certificate is the only accepted form for immigrants; a photocopy of your existing papers would not be accepted. Anyone remember poll taxes?

Although I cannot disagree with a legal voter's intent to legally vote, I very much disagree with the methods since the consequences appear to far outweigh the supposed benefits.

I'm guessing this will be a long day today since neither the Republicans or Democrats (votes will be strictly along party lines), given the debate between Brown and Anchia. They can't even agree on facts:

Anchia: "Don't you agree with the New York University's School of Law's Brennan Center?"

Betty Brown: "Well no, I don't."

Anchia: "Who do you believe, the Kaufman County School of Law?!"

This surely won't be the worst of the partisan politics during today's debates. As Ed Sills noted on 4/13 on Quorum Report's R&D, this will surely wreck any feelings of bi-partisanship that has coalesced over issues like like TYC and TXU.

Sills: With fewer "speaker votes," the minority party is winning more issues cleanly on the merits. The majority party still frames everything, but there’s more evidence of carrot and less of stick.

This certainly begs the question of whether these bills were brought forth specifically to divide these sentiments of the session.

Ronald Reagan comes back to haunt the House

2007-04-19T10:01:00.000-05:00

HB 210, which was placed on today's Local and Consent Calendar, just passed to 3rd reading. The bill would rename I-20 from Dallas to the Louisiana border the Ronald Reagan Memorial Highway. Currently, the only part of I-20 with the name is within the Metroplex.

I posted something on this last session, and I'll keep the rant short: let locals do it, not lawmakers hundreds of miles away. If Texans really want to rename an interstate after a partisan lawmaker from another state, then so be it. But lawmakers operating on their own agenda are the driving force behind this. It's just a waste of money putting up new signs, not to mention bad politics.

It's been a pretty good session for the GLO

2007-04-18T08:58:00.000-05:00

There's one more addition to make to this 3 Letter Session: GLO.

The General Land Office is quietly having a very good session. The GLO has always been an active state agency, especially since it claims on the front page of the website that it's "the oldest state agency in Texas!", and over the years it has had an increasingly large role in the commercial development across the state. The reason: developers have looked to it to buy undeveloped land through the GLO, with its tax-exempt status. The more business the GLO gets, the larger the agency can get, the more staffers get paid. It's a win-win all around, and the deal allows the GLO Commissioner, Jerry Patterson, to gain better contacts and connections as he looks at potential vacancies in higher offices.

Looking at the website, the GLO is currently offering land for business parks in Houston and San Antonio, as well as land along Loop 410 in San Antonio. Want an office in Waco? They just cut the price in half!

While the GLO makes these deals, they are employing what seems to be a fairly successful strategy this session. They are pushing several (I'm counting nine) bills in the House that are designed to give it - sometimes specifically the commissioner - more authority and less transparency. Given that it's had a direct role in developing land across the state, is this really appropriate? Well, lawmakers are overlooking this question.

The House bills in question are carried by Democrats and Republicans alike, and they all but one have Senate sponsors. Some are seemingly innocuous: HB 1138 by Leibowitz would allow the GLO commissioner to accept grants. HB 2518 by Yvonne Davis would require the GLO to post information about the process of selling commercial property on its website. HB 1504 by Eddie Lucio III would expand the financing for the GLO's Save Texas History and Adopt-A-Beach programs.

There are other bills that would do a little more. HB 1556, which was delayed for the third time yesterday, would give the GLO Commissioner broad authority for granting "other interests in property," which the bill fails to define. HB 2819 by Ritter basically does the same thing, only that's just for coastal land. It's already over in the Senate. HB 3486 by Kolkhorst would allow the GLO to sell directly to a development corporation. HB 3560 by Swinford would abolish the Texas Building and Procurement Commission and forward all responsibilites to the GLO. The only guiding principle for these bills is whatever the commissioner determines is "in the best interests of the state."

The worst part about this is that it could work against local control: by not paying the property taxes on these lands, they're cutting back on the local tax base. The San Marcos mayor complained that local taxpayers have paid into infrastructure - utilities and roads - for projects in the city's ETJ, only to see the GLO buy up the land and turn around to make a buck from cutting a deal with private developers.

In addition to expanding the GLO's authority, there's also some legislation that would make the agency less transparent. HB 1853 by Corte, coming to the House floor today, would exempt the GLO, School Land Board, and Veteran's Land Board from providing notices or any information regarding the sale, purchase, or financing of real property unless a statute specifically says otherwise. HB 699 by Turner would make the identity of developers secret until all the deeds for the land are completed. Although this is pretty bad in itself, it opens up a loophole: all deeds for the transaction or series of related transactions would have to be completed. This means that if a large chunk of land is subdivided, one small piece can be left untouched, and therefore the developers would never have to be disclosed.

GLO staffers and the Commish himself have shown up to each committee hearing these bills have had. They're all neutral, but Jerry Patterson usually registers in favor of them. It makes sense for his future to protect and expand what he has now, but the strategy is also pretty smart: split all these issues into separate bills and get them passed piecemeal. I mean who's going to object to the GLO getting grants? But if all these bills were lumped into an omnibus bill and these issues were laid out at the same time, would it pass? Even if it would anyways, I'd guess there'd be a lot more fanfare than there is now.

Whitmire blasts Patrick in Senate debate

2007-04-13T09:29:00.000-05:00

First, the links: Off the Kuff, In the Pink Texas, Postcards from the Lege, Texas Politics, PinkDome's picture, Capitol Letters, and DMN Editorial Board Blog

I won't try to repackage everything these blogs say, so I'll give a 10 second summary of what happened in the Senate yesterday in the spirit of the 7 minute Sopranos.

A man from Houston gets his own radio show, then gets neutered. The citizens elect him to serve the people of Texas. He harasses another man from Houston who just returned from a liver transplant. His best friend, also from Houston, gets mad.

A day late and a dollar short, the man wants $3 billion cut from a budget that's already been debated. He only plans on sharing his cuts with the media, but not with any lawmakers who have the power to change anything. The best friend Houston man stands up.

Whitmire: "It's your time to show this body that you know what you're talking about."

Patrick: "I don't have to be lectured by you."

Whitmire: "You can dish it out but you can't take it. You lectured the man his first day back. Get started. Go tell us how you're going to cut the $3 billion."

The conclusion came after neutered man reads a list of state agencies and declared he has the power to vote on the budget, insinuating he favors his standing in the press to his position as public servant. Moments later, the budget passes by 26-5. Man gets ridiculed in several blogs.

Updates on HB 855

2007-04-12T11:51:00.000-05:00

I'm writing this one myself..

HB 855 would require citizens to identify themselves upon request by the police. Currently, you are supposed to produce an id card when asked to do so; however, police are not allowed to arrest you. HB 855 would have let them.

However, HB 855 was just voted down 23 (ayes) to 116 (nays).

Much was said about this: Rep. Coleman once refused to identify himself during a television interview and was told by a Houston County sheriff that he could be arrested; Rep. Dutton said that it could lead to the police going door to door asking for id; Rep. Dukes had a nephew who was arrested for driving a Corvette through East Austin.

Allegations of racially selective times that HB 855 would be used by the local police led to the defeat of the bill.

For more, see Grits and Capitol Annex

Tom Delay bill quietly passes

2007-04-11T14:59:00.000-05:00

this post has been deleted. see comments

Tuition Dereg debated today

2007-04-10T14:39:00.000-05:00

Starting at 7am, the Senate Subcommittee on Higher Education has again revisited the merits of tuition deregulation, a 2003 plan that sought to raise public university funds without a penny more from the state by increasing tuition costs to students and parents at unforseen rates. Last session, Sen. Ellis tacked on an amendment that would've sunsetted tuition dereg by 2008 to a bill that would've improved accountability standards for universities with tuition deregulation. Geanie Morrison (Higher Ed chair in the House, author of tuition dereg, HB 3015, in 2003 and not an owner of a bachelor's degree) never gave it a hearing.

Tuition dereg, aside from increasing tuition, has negatively affected affordability and access at our state's colleges and universities. According to the Daily Texan, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board estimates tuition has increased by 61 percent at state universities overall and 102 percent at UT since tuition deregulation.

Students and parents have had an increasingly hard time paying for tuition hikes since the higher rates and the reluctance on the part of the Legislature to pay for these increases have led to less people receiving TEXAS Grants, the most popular state grant program. Additionally, the inability to predict tuition rates several years down the road has closed the rolls of the Texas Tomorrow Fund since 2003, though Ray Perryman now contests this decision. These are the programs that low and middle income students rely on the most for paying for the increases.

Funny enough, in today's meeting Sen. Williams called tuition hikes "like crack for universities". Williams understated the comparison: crack is a serious problem that destabilizes ghetto communities. Crack poses a lofty goal for the inhabitants: to let some people feel good and get high while bringing in money and resources. The problem is that it really doesn't bring in new money, and it pits neighbor versus neighbor, friend versus friend.

At our universities, it's becoming increasingly hard to gain admission and to stay enrolled (retention) from tightened admission standards and higher tuition rates. Not to mention that it really doesn't bring in all that much new money. For example, tuition has risen 102 percent at UT-Austin. Students feel more of the consequences from higher tuition than its benefits. Right after tuition dereg passed, libraries at the university declared they'd no longer stay open 24 hours a day and 150 staff members would be fired.

Administrators carried out these austerity measures for the same reasons that they raised tuition; yet these university services have not been restored and there is currently no plan to do so. Less and less money is spent on student services even though "flexible tuition" has only gone up.

See also: Proposals for college tuition, automatic admission vary widely

On electricity debates and Robert Talton

2007-04-08T09:47:00.000-05:00

Last week, I was pretty disappointed all around during the debates on SB 482 and 483. The background story, in case you've been living under a rock, is that TXU has had some high rates, Sen. Fraser got mad and passed these bills out quickly, and now Wednesday was King's turn. All King really had to do was pass them out unchanged, and any flak from KKR lobbyists could be directed at Fraser.

But that's just not King's way. He wants anything he carries to be tailored to the industry because, after all he did say in committee, that he wants to be "holding hands" with them again. Look, please do that on your own time.

I'm sour because the debate over two good bills boiled down to politics as usual, with Rep. Turner making some impassioned speeches and King espousing his hatred of socialists. Rep. Oliveira carried a weak amendment that everyone and their mother signed on to; many D's did so in order to get their own amendments tacked on later in the debate.

Enter Rep. Turner. He gets up to oppose this amendment to correctly state that it would do nothing. Seemingly, it would provide PUC with the authority to review the price of electric rates and reduce it accordingly. Well, it would with the exception of one word: may. Without a shall or must, the PUC will sit on its hands, which is how King wants it.

Enter Robert Talton. Not that he had anything intelligent to add to the conversation (though I'm sure we would've liked to take a swipe at socialists), just another point of order. I understand his reasons for doing so: he probably doesn't like the bills or even the concept of slightest regulation of energy rates, and raising these points of order may be with the intention to drive a wedge between Turner and the Speaker. OK, I get that. Turner is increasingly alienated from the Speaker with each point of order.

What I don't understand is why Craddick upholding these. Obviously, Craddick and Talton agree on many issues ideologically, but Craddick also understands the political consequences of doing so. I'll speculate to say that this session may turn out to be a do-nothing session (well, not to slight the Senate but....) Turner isn't going to stand by the Speaker for too much longer if every bill (minus the slight expansion of CHIP) or issue he cares about gets swept away. There's a chance that he'll go wingnut, since he's getting no love from the Speaker nor from non-Craddick D's, and he may start killing debates as well.

I guess there are worse sessions to be do-nothing sessions, but there's still some pretty big issues on the table: TYC still ain't over; TXU does need some real, not perceived, oversight; TTC is still threatening rural Texans. Get those taken care of, then you can hold hands with KKR lobbyists all you want.

TX Observer

Statesman

PinkDome

Reservoirs not up on Wednesday

2007-04-03T17:47:00.000-05:00

Thankfully, probably due to the sizable Calendar for Wednesday, the House Natural Resources Committee has decided not to hear the House Bills dealing with the 19 proposed reservoirs: HB 1681 by Geren (pro), HB 2187 by Hartnett (pro), and HB 2470 by Robby Cook (anti) -- although they are hearing Rep. Puente said that he wants to hear Rep. Guillen's HB 2833, which would provide for a "voluntary" land stewardship program.

The main issue is not devastating unoccupied land by pouring concrete and filling it with water as much as it is eminent domain and the rights of private property owners. The reservoirs in SB 3 proved a contentious issue in the Senate, where Sen. Eltife lead the charge against the reservoirs. Sen. Averitt kept the language in, despite the fact that he considered moving SB 675 forward in its place, which is just the reservoir language.

Eltife was able to attach an amendment that basically makes the Marvin Nichols reservoir, the largest on the table, jump through some hoops before it's built, but the Senate pushed through all of the original reservoirs. Puente wants to hear testimony for them (on Geren's and Hartnett's two bills; Note: they're both D/FW rep's) and against (Cook's bill basically tries to levy some fines and make any exercise of eminent domain into more of an consensual agreement, but doesn't actually stop the reservoirs)

Cook's bill falls in line with his, Callegari's, and Otto's agenda as members of the Land & Resource Management's subcommittee on Eminent Domain: not trying to stop it or challenging the Supreme Court decision, but making it more viable and less harsh to rural folks.

Regardless, Puente has voted out his two stand-alone water bills: HB 3 (the scientific study of environmental flows) and, more recently, HB 4 (water conservation) -- both of which are from last session's SB 3 and neither of which contain provisions for reservoirs. Puente has put the debate on hold until at least after Easter. Thank goodness Swinford doesn't chair that committee.....

Turner kills Calendar rule, then pays the price

2007-04-02T17:10:00.000-05:00

Today, before the House got to the Calendar, Rep. Beverly Woolley tried to introduce a Calendar rule to establish a timeline (5pm, Tuesday, April 3) by which amendments for the anti-TXU bills would had to have been filed. Rep. Phil King, author of HB 1189 and HB 1190 - the two in question, entertained questions from Rep. Turner, who opposed adopting the pre-filing Calendar rule for anything other than Sunset bills.

(Quick note on the bills: HB 1189 and HB 1190 would essentially increase competition in the deregulated electric market. TXU thinks they're both against their interests since both are essentially pro-customer.)

King then heard some opposition from Reps. Dunnam and Merritt, saying that it didn't make sense to give King this advanced warning to what's to come for these bills, which will seemingly pass tomorrow. I guess it's because so many members will tack on some pretty outlandish amendments, I'm just speculating here, but possibly reregulating the energy market or System's Benefit Fund, which I'll get to in a minute. Regardless, members are going to seek to strengthen the bills after King gutted them in committee -- the companion legislation is also out of committee, and Sen. Fraser's versions are much stronger.

Rep. Solomons, who's carried Sunset bills before, spoke against the bill from the front mic, and Rep. Turner followed who said that it'd set a bad precedent to mandate pre-filing amendments for any pro-industry bills. Rep. Hartnett, who's into his second term on Regulated Industries, said that it'd be a good idea to pre-file amendments for bills coming out of that committee since he just doesn't get some of them.

Hartnett then tried to underscore the complexity of bills coming out of Regulated Industries and proceeded to quiz Turner on what "nodal agreements" are, and Turner responded in kind, explaining that it has to do with transferring energy from one part of the state to another during times of high load (hey, he's much more eloquent that I am...) After Turner was done with this, Hartnett then quizzed Turner on "securitization," which Turner again aptly explain. Even if he BS'ed some of it, it still came out good. After Turner smacked Hartnett down, King had Woolley withdraw the motion due to its 'controversy.'

The first bill on the Calendar today was HB 551, a bill to restore the System's Benefit Fund to its original purpose, of directing a fee of electrical customers, instead of its current use, towards GR - a 2003 move. It should've passed until Rep. Talton got to the back mic.

He raised a point of order against the bill, citing Rule 8, section 21 that any bills moving money from GR cannot be heard during the first 118 days of session. The rumor mill is saying that some KKR/TXU lobbyists were on the floor and passed the point of order along until it got to Talton. Since Talton's not on the Speaker's agenda, he raised the point of order. They ended up postponing the bill until the end of the calendar, but the result was the same. Since the bill's not a Republican bill, Craddick sustained it. There's no chance they'll hear this or a similar bill until the 119th day.

This just means that Wednesday ought to be an interesting and long day.

Rep. McCall topped off the day's events after Talton initially raised the point of order, going to the back mic and informing the Speaker that "There are some Points of Order from the Lobby waiting at the front door."

Democrats have taken control of the Education Budget

2007-03-29T19:47:00.000-06:00

It's amazing to watch the debate on the Education Budget. It started off with an amendment by Rep. Noriega - who has eyes on another capitol - to an across-the-board teacher pay raise, which surprisingly passed 90-56. Among these are Reps. Turner and Davis from Clear Lake, both from Houston - the city who's taken a hit for their incentive-based increases. John Davis only won his election with 53% of the vote, and this it's certainly a contentious issue when an HISD superintendent awards himself with $168,000 paycheck...

Then came the voucher debate, which was slightly less climatic than last session. Without Carter Casteel making passionate speeches on looking forward to spending time with her grandchildren, freshman Joe Heflin attached an amendment to ban state funds for voucher programs. Speaker Craddick promptly left the dias after the amendment was adopted.

Currently, Rep. Coleman is trying to attach an amendment to gut Bob Perry's Residential Commission to fund TEXAS Grants, a higher ed student grant program. With the Dems pulling votes, Article III will be interesting for the next few hours. Or days, whatever.

Perry appoints TYC conservatorship

2007-03-28T12:53:00.000-06:00

Today Gov. Perry appointed a conservatorship for the Texas Youth Commission, which will be widely hailed a good move to bring the troubled agency into order. Although he initially resisted such a move, Perry has appointed Jay Kimbrough as conservator.

I can't take credit for breaking the story though; see the Chron's blog post

UPDATE: I can't stand being wrong. It wasn't a conservatorship, just a conservator. See the DMN's analysis of the compromise.

UPDATE #2: See Vince's post on why Kimbrough is the wrong man for the job

News updates

2007-03-28T11:25:00.000-06:00

I'm wrapped up in budget stuff at the moment, so I'll forward you on to a few other posts:

Grits for Breakfast has a good post about the case of Shaquanda Cotton, an African-American female sent to TYC for shoving a hall monitor. Hmm, I'm pretty sure I did the same thing in my youth...

Capitol Annex has a post about Top Ten and how it helps rural kids. I actually had a similar post last session. Unfortunately, most of the links to news stories are dead, but the UT Watch factsheet still appears active.

Off the Kuff noted that the Senate unanimously passed SB 558 by Sen. Ellis to cloose the Bill Ceverha loophole. Thank goodness, I guess my laptop carry case to Rodney paid off..

(Note: This a joke, so please don't investigate me. Unless you're the Texas Ethics Commission, since then I wouldn't be worried one way or the other)

Highlights from yesterday's House Floor

2007-03-22T09:02:00.000-06:00

I'm still stunned by the scenes from yesterday's House Floor. It was one of those days when so many bills are heard that stress runs high and emotions are subject to change: i.e. there's a greater chance of reactionary politics.

For starters, Rep. Jerry Madden laid out HB 427, which is a bill that would allow for counties to request a special prosecuting unit for TYC charges. Rep. Dunnam attached an amendment that would create a special prosecutor based in (not necessarily from) Travis County, and this prosecutor would not override local DAs.

Rep. Dunnam began speaking passionately about this since "we need to do something about our boys getting raped with state dollars." Rep. Madden then turned around and got on his own soapbox and, with even more passion, spoke about why this would be bad. It was a little underwhelming and disingenuous to watch a rep opposing his own bill from getting strengthened, though, since it seemed like the Republicans have something to hide:

Then, Texas House Speaker Tom Craddick (R-Midland) had his opportunity to kill the amendment by throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Rep. Larry Phillips (R-Sherman) raised a technical point of order which would normally go unnoticed on such important legislation.

The bill's now back in committee.

A little later, Rep. Elkins brought HJR 59, which would require a 3 day (well, after Rep. Leibowitz's amendment, it's now up to 5 days) session after any veto by the Governor, including line-item vetoes in the budget. Though I support this, I also support what Rep. McCall said. Rep. Hartnett said that it's already such a burden to uphold the responsibilities of elected office, and another 3 days would just be awful.

McCall answered with something along the lines of: "Well, we only meet for 140 days every other year, and for the first 55 days we just do the pledge and a bunch of resolutions." Why wasn't this man speaker?

The second to last bill for the day (it was supposed to be the last until the ethics bill was postponed) was a seemingly low-profile bill about statues on state property. It passed last session 145-0, with support from such rep's as Thompson and Veasey, members of the Black Caucus.

However, tensions ran high because the bill would seemingly throw in a roadblock to moving or removing confederate statues from university campuses. There are a few high-profile, prominent ones at UT-Austin that include Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee. The bill would require universities to gain authority from the state Historical Commission in order to move or remove them.

Requiring a little extra bureaucracy is nothing new to the Lege, but this set off a firestorm of debate, with members of the Black Caucus trying to kill/amend the bill to where confederate statues wouldn't necessitate such permission from the commission.

Thompson initially offered an amendment "unless that person engaged in an armed insurrection against the United States," then after Veasey had one exempting universities from the bill, he had one: "... does not apply to a...person who...is or was a member of or affiliated with a terrorist organization, including the Ku Klux Klan." Each amendment was tabled, but the last was tabled because it also included a provision since it included slave owners, and the white Republicans fighting against the bill were quick to point out that many of their heroes were slave owners.

Veasey started to get upset and said that certain rep's ancestors had probably owned his ancestors, and Rep. Thompson said that she was offended that the bill even made it to the floor, directing her comment at Speaker Craddick.

Rep. Woolley, for some strange reason, stood up (almost proudly) and proclaimed she was the reason for the bill making it out of committee. This triggered a near knock-down, drag-out fight on the floor, which needed a sergeant-at-arms and Borris Miles to break it up: Miles stepped in between the two rep's and backed Thompson away from smacking Woolley upside the head. They then went head-to-head again and had to be broken up again.

Rep. Thompson finally struck gold when she offered an amendment: "This section does not apply to a monument or memorial for a person who does not believe in 'One Nation Under God.'" Many of the Religious Right weren't going to vote against this, and the motion to table failed, 34-85.

At one point during the debate, it may have been during this amendment, Rep. Miller did admit that this bill would've protected the confederate statues, even though he'd started off the debate saying the bill was to protect MLK and César Chavez.

In an unexpected move, State Affairs Chairman David Swinford stood at the front mic and apologized for the bill making it through his committee since he had "no idea" of its ramifications. In an even more expected move, after 45 minutes to an hour debate, Rep. Miller pulled the bill down, echoing what the chairman said. Granted, the bill no longer protected confederate statues so he had nothing to lose, but he postponed it until July 4.

See also:

Postcards from the Lege: Monumental tiff goes poof

Capitol Letters: I hate the words "cat fight." Hate. Them.

Although I appreciate Miller not insisting on passing his bill, I felt almost as sick as I did watching Madden pouring his heart out to water down his own bill when Miller invoked some patriotic obligation to unite the body when he postponed the bill. All in all, it was a long, crazy day.

HB 1 out of committee

2007-03-21T09:42:00.000-06:00

With Rep. Turner registering Present Not Voting, and Reps. Allen and Noriega casting the only Nay votes, HB 1 moved out of Appropriations this morning. Floor debate will take place next Thursday.

The Supplemental Appropriations Bill will be heard this afternoon.

Are the parks bills on the move or not?

2007-03-21T08:25:00.000-06:00

There is little doubt that HB 6, with its 126 co-authors, will pass with flying colors. Its companion, SB 252, has 23 authors in the Senate, though it still hasn't received a public hearing.

HB 6 was voted out of committee March 14 in one of those 5 minute meetings during reading and referral of bills, making an observer such as myself think that it was on its way to the floor. However, it's still in Calendars, and there's no indication that it'll be send to the floor any time soon.

I say this not for the simple reason that it's still in Calendars but because of the controversy caused by HB 7 and HB 12. HB 7 would transfer 21 park sites to the Texas Historical Commission, and HB 12 is an omnibus parks bill, combining HB 6 and HB 7.

HB 6 would take 74% of the largest generator of GR, the sporting goods tax, and place it in the State Parks Account, and the rest would be split between smaller parks accounts. State lawmakers have wanted to fix state parks for several years now, and they believe that they've found a good solution.

The problem (HB 7) is that once other state agencies heard the commotion over how much money the sporting goods tax was bringing in, they wanted a slice of the pie. The Historical Commission has asked to operate 21 (actually, now they've recognized 25 sites they say are prime for switching over) sites, complete with their prospective new funding. The General Land Office has also piled on, asking for sporting goods tax money for beach, ahem coastal erosion, projects via HB 2487.

Rep. Hilderbran authored HB 6 since it went through his committee -- Culture, Recreation, and Tourism committee -- and once said that he'd drop his support for 6 in exchange for HB 12, but now the debate's changing since the wide support for the Historical Commission switch is starting to dwindle. Until then, the parks bills may not move.

Deadly force bill now law

2007-03-19T14:05:00.000-06:00

This is even more ridiculous than last session's booty shaking bill from last session: SB 378 provides for deadly force in defense of a person.

I guess the thought was: you can defend yourself if your house is broken into. However, under this bill:

If you see a person on the street getting groped, you can kill the perp.

If you're on a bike or one of those stupid looking segways tooling around town, and someone tries to rob you, you can kill them.

If you walk into a convenience store at 9:01, and it closed at 9:00, you're dead meat.

This is a bill that should've been (cough) killed in committee, but since it has support of 2/3 of each body, it's now law (or, at least after it's passed out of 3rd reading). It doesn't need Gov. Perry's signature. What's worse is that it got no debate.

Imagine this: you're Robert Talton, you're at Mardi Gras, and you see a group of guys trying to cop a feel on a drunk girl. You can spray buckshots on that crowd.

Conversely, if you get caught doing this twice within 31 days, under HB 8, which is now out of the Senate's Criminal Justice Committee, the state could put you 6 feet under.

This is why Texans are laughed for our cultural backwardness at in other countries, and by other countries, I mean other states.

Voter ID bill may be DOA

2007-03-15T12:25:00.000-06:00

Kuff has a good post on Sen. Ellis' intent to kill any voter id bills. The only thing I have to add is this: last session, either Time or Newsweek, I forget which, said that the Department of Justice was going to have to investigate any efforts to impose a Voter ID bill in Texas because of our past history of intimidating people of color, specifically with Jim Crow laws.

Accenture contract cancelled

2007-03-15T09:29:00.000-06:00

I may be one of the last posting about this, so I'll just point you in the direction of a blog I recently discovered: Bay Area Houston: Accenture gets the axe. Again.

I was not advised

2007-03-14T10:25:00.000-06:00

Although I'd heard that Gov. Perry is visiting Dubai to dedicate a Texas A&M Engineering Facility, I was not aware that Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst now has the authority to appoint a TYC conservatorship. Since the acting governor is out of the state, the lt. governor acts as the head of state.

It's no secret that Dewhurst is considering losing a little power in exchange for a white mansion at 10th and Colorado, and undoubtedly he'll mention it along the campaign trail around 2009-10: "And as Lieutenant Governor, I saved your boys from getting raped with state dollars."

Rep. Jim Dunnam tried to present a resolution on the House floor requesting that Dewhurst appoint a conservatorship, but Speaker Craddick continues to stonewall House efforts to get involved with the conservatorship, raising speculation that he may have something to hide. Although Craddick allowed Jerry Madden to appoint his joint committee, he is not allowing legislation to flow through. Dunnam was able to attach an amendment onto HB 8, but that's it so far.

Let's see what Dewhurst can do as governor today.

UPDATE: To not fuel the speculation, I'll post this for reasons of disclosure: Maybe Craddick has something to hide, or maybe he just doesn't like Dunnam or Merritt....

The New, Old TXU

2007-03-12T16:35:00.000-06:00

I started writing something on Greg Abbott's potential TYC blunder when I was forwarded the following letter.

Apparently, TXU manipulated the energy market and profited $19.6 million directly from ratepayers. TXU's behavior in the summer of 2005 indicated "market power abuse". The TXU deal must be more than lip service to the enviro's, the new TXU ought to be accountable to the public at large. To CEO John Wilder: this means more than just watching out for your shareholders.

I guess that new 10% rebate, which customers are already receiving may just be a small rebate from what they've already been overcharged.

To: Chairman Paul Hudson
Commissioner Julie Caruthers Parsley
Commissioner Barry T. Smitherman

From: Brian H. Lloyd
Special Projects Manager

Through: W. Lane Lanford
Executive Director

Date: March 12, 2007

Re: Project No. 32125; Investigation by the Independent Market Monitor of the Wholesale Market Activities of TXU From June 1 to September 30, 2005

As you will recall, the PUC Staff, in conjunction with the Independent Market Monitor ("IMM"), opened an investigation into the wholesale market activities of TXU in early September 2006. The investigation was initiated as a result of several concerns raised in the 2005 State of the Market Report for the ERCOT Wholesale Electricity Markets ("SOM Report") regarding the bidding behavior of TXU during the summer of 2005.^[1] The SOM Report did not analyze the effect of TXU's activities on balancing energy market prices, and as such, did not draw definitive conclusions about whether or not TXU's behavior constituted market power abuse or any other violation of law.

The IMM has competed [completed?] the more thorough and detailed investigation into the concerns that were raised in the SOM Report and has provided its final investigation report to the Commission.

The IMM's Investigation Report concludes that TXU's bidding behavior during the peak usage hours in the summer of 2005 ("the Study Period") was not competitive and increased balancing energy prices by an average of 15.5%. The IMM found that TXU's behavior increased the costs to purchasers of balancing energy by approximately $70 million during the Study Period and that TXU earned approximately $19.6 million more profit during the Study Period than TXU would have if TXU had bid in a competitive manner. Because TXU had the ability and incentive to raise prices, the IMM concluded that TXU had market power in the balancing energy market. Since TXU, in fact, raised prices in the market and profited from its activities, the IMM concluded that TXU's behavior constitutes market power abuse. The IMM also notes that TXU's behavior would tend to increase prices in other wholesale and retail markets, although those effects are not easily quantifiable.

Commission Staff has reviewed the IMM's Investigation Report and will expeditiously evaluate the appropriate penalty or other remedy for TXU's actions, including the filing of a Notice of Violation by the Executive Director to recommend the assessment of administrative penalties pursuant to PUC Procedural Rule 22,246. As you are aware that process will provide TXU an opportunity to decide whether to accept the determination and recommended penalty or to request a hearing before the State Office of Administrative Hearings to contest the occurrence of the alleged violation, the recommended penalty, or, both the occurrence of the violation and the recommended penalty. TXU also will have the option to request a settlement conference.

Because of the level of interest that this matter has generated, I believe it is in the public interest to release the report now instead of waiting for the full development of a Notice of Violation, which may take some time. Accordingly, the Staff is releasing a public version of the report that is redacted. The only information that has been redacted is certain unit-specific information concerning some of TXU's generating plants. This information is considered by TXU to be confidential trade secret information, the release of which may cause competitive harm to TXU. Staff does not believe that the withholding of this information impacts the ability of the public to review and understand the analysis presented in the report.

As you will ultimately decide whether or not you agree with the IMM's findings on the alleged violation and Commission Staff's recommendations on penalties, the Commission Staff involved in the prosecution of the Notice of Violation and the IMM will not be discussing this matter with you privately. However, should you desire a report regarding this matter at an upcoming Open Meeting, please have your staff so inform me, and I will see that it is placed on the agenda.

^[1] The SOM Report had ken prepared by Potomac Economics as part of a contract with the PUC for wholesale electric market monitoring services. Potomac Economics has since been retained by the PUC as the IMM for the ERCOT region pursuant to Public Utility Regulatory Act Section 39.1515.

Kuff on Abbott on Perry

2007-03-12T14:20:00.000-06:00

Confusing title, but I basically mean this: check out Kuff's post today

I was hoping to have more to say today, considering that Friday was the filing deadline and there were whispers that Craddick wanted to slam rep's with tons of bills today, but alas nothing too big or controversial. Makes my job easier

The new property rights battle

2007-03-07T09:00:00.000-06:00

Quick quiz: What did Sen. Eltife call "Trans-Texas Corridor Round 2" in committee?

Answer: Eltife was referring to the idea to build 19 reservoir sites across the state, which Senate Natural Resources took up yesterday. He claimed that the state would be "trampling people's water rights."

The battle over water mirrors the battle over energy: numbers projecting future growth are heavily cited but not well defined. The Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) adopted a plan last November that would necessitate 250,000 acres of land to build upon, and most of that would be taken by eminent domain.

The Quorum Report noted in its daily buzz that opposition came not only from environmental groups but also the Texas Farm Bureau and the Cattlemen's Association of Texas. Organized labor is also coming out against this, since these reservoirs would build upon land that the logging industry currently uses as its source for trees.

Essentially, these reservoirs would take a section of land, put some sort of structure on it, and fill it with water. It would devastate whatever's currently there: a farm, a tree farm, or fuzzy animals.

The push for these comes mainly from the cities, such as Dallas and Fort Worth (if Dan Branch's grandstanding on HB 3 on the floor was any indication..), who believe that Texas will soon run out of water, therefore we must build them. (Sound familiar?) The ironic note is that Dallas mayor Laura Miller (was? is?) leading the cities' fight against TXU and their plans for new coal plants. She had been saying that the "need" argument for the new coal plants construction is a sham. Hmm.....

Anyways, critics of the reservoirs say that 19 reservoirs is egregious. The main reason, they say, why we don't need them is because we waste so much water right now anyways. Much like in the energy fight, if we enacted not only conservation but efficiency programs (like better pipes, etc.), we wouldn't need the reservoirs to begin with.

Sen. Kip Averitt, who authored the bill and chairs the committee hearing it, is intent on keeping the reservoirs as part of the omnibus water bill, SB 3, even though it could come at a cost to passing out the bill and despite SB 675, a stand-alone bill for the reservoirs.

HB 3 is now in the Senate and will presumably go through Senate Natural Resources. HB 4 will start moving in a few weeks' time, and neither deals with new reservoirs. Averitt may not try attaching the reservoir language to HB 3, since it's essentially a scientific study of bays and estuaries, but he may try it on HB 4 to get reservoirs out of committee. I guess we'll see how it plays out.

I'll end this on a positive note: The theme of this session, though, seems to be less politically divisive than the previous two. I like that Eltife can air objections to a bill that puts him on the same side as the Sierra Club. I personally like it when the debate is just around policy.

More on HB 8 and TYC

2007-03-06T10:10:00.000-06:00

Instead of trying to write something comprehensive myself, I'll reference the intelligent posts by several fellow bloggers:

Delay made Jessica's Law worse by Grits for Breakfast

Two out of three ain't bad by the Texas Observer Blog

And tons of posts by Capitol Annex

HB 8's tougher sentencing laws, though well intentioned, will indeed make it tougher for children to speak up, especially in smaller communities where many citizens know each other. The attention that a trial and 25 year sentence would draw would make it harder for children to speak up. The shame of the event would encourage kids to keep their mouths shut for fear of other kids finding out and ridiculing them for the remainder of their K-12 education. No, this is not an appropriate tribute for Jessica Lunsford.

However, this didn't prevent Rep. Riddle from accepting an award for passing the bill: "I want to thank my staff, my husband...." My goodness.

On a related note, Jim Dunnam (D-Waco) tried to call up HB 2340 before the HB 8 debate that would establish a conservatorship for TYC, but Speaker Craddick shot that down with a simple, "No." Instead, Dunnam attached an amendment providing a second-degree felony for any state employee who know of sexual assaults but fail to report them. This section may not make it to the Governor's desk with the rest of the bill.

Interestingly, Gov. Perry is still reluctant to overhaul TYC. However, as Kuff points out, Perry has ordered the Lege to act quickly to fix some of the problems making headlines across the state. According to the post, Rep. Madden is eager to hear some bills and get them on the floor soon.

Perry's 3 letter session

2007-03-02T16:45:00.000-06:00

Unbecoming photo courtesy of Capitol Annex

Landslide Rick ain't looking so good as of late. In what some are calling a 3 letter session -- from TYC to HPV to TTC to TXU (don't forget KKR) -- Gov. Perry is probably thinking of just one that starts with four letters. So far, his executive orders are falling short of their intended effectiveness, and his new appointment, Ed Owens, as TYC chair falls far short of the conservatorship that all 31 Senators asked for, via SR 384, on Wednesday's irregular evening session.

As Quorum Report reported half an hour ago:

A pair of House members, Democrat Jim Dunnam of Waco and Republican Tommy Merritt of Longview, went further, saying today’s action in effect let Perry off the hook on naming a conservator.

So if Gov. Perry won't go far enough, then who will? This afternoon, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and Speaker Tom Craddick issued a press release (Thanks TX Observer..) announcing a Joint Select Committee on the Texas Youth Commission (TYC), co-chaired by Sen. John Whitmire and Rep. Jerry Madden.

Just this minute (literally), QR reported that Travis County DA Ronnie Earle began an investigation today. This is certainly a hot-button issue -- such as some claiming that 'they're using state dollars to rape our boys' -- and much more fallout is expected.

Please see previous posts for HPV and TXU. I may do something on TTC soon, but shit it's Friday, closing in on 5pm. Look for something relatively soon though.

Recapping the Week

2007-03-01T09:25:00.000-06:00

I know it's not Friday yet, meaning there's plenty of time for strange things to happen, but I figure it's a good time to recap what's happened this week.

First, the TXU deal was a shock to me, especially since I was convinced that they'd build all 11 of their plants, come hell or high water. They've now, after striking a deal with Environmental Defense and the Natural Resources Defense Fund, agreed to only three. Well, I guess if you're negotiating, you always want to start high so that you get only what you wanted in the first place. (TXU just didn't seem the type to negotiate in the first place..)

On Tuesday, Phil King and the House Regulated Industries Committee had their own (read: light) version of Sen. Fraser's lashings of TXU and CEO John Wilder. I was a little underwhelmed by their tough talking, such as King saying 'Some people want to put the toothpaste back in the tube and re-regulate the energy market in Texas' (I'm paraphrasing here) and Rep. Turner saying that if TXU is allowed to profit at the expense of ratepayers, then he'd "regret his vote in 1999," alluding to the vote to deregulate the market.

It was interesting, though, when Rep. Turner took his turn grilling KKR's Fred Goltz. First, Goltz said that they were providing a 10% price decrease to current customers, but Turner, and later King, pointed to the fact that this isn't a new price break since some customers are already getting the break. Then came the prospect that CEO Wilder may gain another $200 million from the deal. Not only did Goltz and Co. back down from addressing this, but they couldn't say just how much Wilder has made over the past 12-24 months. Last, Rep. Turner asked repeatedly if the TXU deal meant that only three plants would be built, and if KKR was willing to sign a moratorium saying so.

Although TXU's previous tactics included striking fear into state officials by saying that Texas will lack adequate energy to meet new growth, Goltz got up said that three -- not eleven -- plants was all TXU needs to stay above the reserve margin line. They did say that they'll increase their investments in alternative energy, but Goltz made it clear that this deal in no way limits them from building more coal plants in the future......

This meeting comes the same day as the Senate Business & Commerce heard testimony on SB 483, which limits market power of an energy company to 25 percent in each of the four main energy regions of Texas, and 20 percent overall in ERCOT. In North Texas, TXU is rumored to control upwards of 70 percent; minimum 45 percent. Fraser, rightly so, says this bill "increases competition."

It's obvious that Fraser and his colleagues such as Kevin Eltife are furious with TXU, saying that they're "pillaring" their customers, so I guess I wanted to see more from Regulated Industries. I mean come on, Phil King would never re-regulate the energy market. However, King did tell TXU that the Lege can pass some bills that would not favor TXU if he felt they weren't cooperating with him, and TXU responded by tacitly threatening their pledge not to sell TXU for at least the next five years.

Phew, that was longer than I thought it would be, but I guess coal plants are one of the biggest issues right now (I say that as I listen to the Senate Transportation committee's hearing on Trans-Texas Corridor). I was hoping for more space to give a shout-out to Paul Burka for his praise of the House yesterday since for once the debate didn't take place along party lines. I'd have to agree.

Rep. Gary Elkins has a bill that would call a special session if the Governor goes on another veto rage. Sen. Wentworth is carrying the companion in the Senate, which has yet to get a hearing. On a completely unrelated note, HB 1098 is now in Calendars, much to the delight of its 92 authors.

Capitol Annex has a post about a back-end deal for vouchers: autistic kids. Sen. Shapiro, the author of SB 1000, says that she expects a "zero" fiscal note, mainly since it has sunset provisions. I have a little cousin who's autistic, and no I don't think that he should get a voucher. Voucher would bankrupt the schools that the students would leave, so I'm thinking about the others left behind.

Two other main points of contention: this would simply be a gateway for vouchers for other disabled children, using them to pass an anti-educational program. And second, Florida has already tried a voucher bill for kids with autism, and it failed tremendously.

Three bills fast-tracked to floor

2007-02-27T09:34:00.000-06:00

Tomorrow, the House will take up three bills, some new and not so new.

The biggest fight tomorrow may well be over HB 5, the enabling legislation for HJR 1 that provides tax relief for seniors and those disabled. The major fight won't be an ideological one (HJR 1 passed with overwhelming bi-partisan support) -- it's essentially over the May 12 vote. Some smaller municipalities are saying they don't have the funds to hold it, so there could be a multitude of amendments regarding this.

HB 3 is also up tomorrow. It's essentially the first section of last session's SB 3, the omnibus water bill. This session's HB 3 would create the Environmental Flows Advisory Group, which would mitigate the state's water uses for rivers, brooks, streams, bay, and estuaries.

Puente plans to offer an amendment to delay the reports by the science teams who would directly oversee the bays and estuaries, which should pass without much fanfare. However, there are other smaller amendments that would establish conservation and utility districts, and if I remember this correctly, these provisions are what killed SB 3 last go-round.

HB 8 is the third major piece of legislation up tomorrow, which would establish the so-called "Jessica's Law." It targets a minority within a minority: sexually violent offenders that target children. Sex offenders are only a tiny fraction of our society, and it would target the sickest of the sick and kill them. It seems to be more of a political stunt by Lt. Governor Dewhurst than anything though. Therapy for these sick souls is what's needed the most, but hey just do what ya can to keep them away from the kids.

Rep. Bonnen also has a bill, HB 542, tomorrow that would rename Brazos River Harbor Navigation District of Brazoria County to "Port Freeport." Why this is coming up right now is beyond me, but what's interesting is that this isn't on the Emergency Calendar -- it's on the General State Calendar. Something's up.

TXU now a bit shaken up

2007-02-26T09:27:00.000-06:00

I was in the midst of writing a post about Gov. Perry signing SCR 20 on Friday, when I checked the news and saw all this hubbub about TXU's plans going up in smoke.

Last week, after Travis County District Judge Stephen Yelenosky ruled that Gov. Perry shouldn't have issued the executive order to fast-track the new coal plants, the administrative hearings for seven coal-fired plants that were supposed to start the next morning were delayed for four months.

Then came the news on Friday that Kohlberg, Kravis & Roberts (KKR) and the Texas Pacific Group are now bidding to buy out TXU. KKR has a speciality for buying out fledgling companies and turning them around to boost their portfolio and improve their standing in the stock market. In order to get the buyout approved, though, TXU has canceled plans for 8 of their 11 plants, due to the large opposition to these plants.

So far, environmental groups such as Environmental Defense, Public Citizen, the Sierra Club, and other local groups registered their staunch opposition from the get-go. Then along came natural gas companies, the Texas Baptists, Sen. John Kerry -- and Albert J. Huddleston, a pro-business Republican who helped finance the Swift Boat television ads that played no small part in Kerry's 2004 botched presidential run, and finally the Catholics piled on. What's that old adage about politics and strange bedfellows?

Seemingly, the opinions of the above groups and the barrage of news articles, and all the court proceedings led TXU to accept the bid from KKR and Texas Pacific late yesterday evening. The buyout, roughly $44 billion - $32 billion for the purchase, plus $12 billion in debt - is the largest private sector acquisition ever.

This shocks me on the one hand since they won't make nearly as much money from a potential cap-and-trade program as I'd thought or from ratepayers. The other shocking aspect is that TXU's fearmongering seems to fall flat: they had been saying that Texas needed these plants, or else. Energy shortages! Dependable resources! ¡Rolling blackouts! Actually, the hollowness of the need argument isn't all that shocking....

The other concrete outcomes of the bid agreement, in addition to withdrawing permit applications for eight proposed coal plants, Texas Pacific Group and KKR have agreed to:

Terminate TXU's previous plans to expand coal operations in other states

Endorse the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (US CAP) platform, including the call for a mandatory federal cap on carbon emissions

Reduce the company's carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2020

Promote Demand-Side Management programs to reduce energy consumption

Double the company's expenditures on energy efficiency measures

Double the company's purchase of wind power

Honor TXU’s agreement to reduce criteria pollutants in Texas by 20% (TXU’s 20% pledge was contingent upon approval of all 11 plants)

Establish a Sustainable Energy Advisory Board, on which Environmental Defense regional director Jim Marston and Ralph Cavanagh from the Natural Resources Defense Council will serve

Regardless, the war over coal plants and Texas energy needs is far from over. TXU still has plans for 3 more plants, not to mention the 8 other coal-fired units that will be built by other companies. Stay tuned for more.

Perry's HPV Executive Order to Face a Floor Fight

2007-02-22T11:00:00.000-06:00

Yesterday afternoon, the House Public Health committee passed out HB 1098, which would simply rescind Gov. Perry's executive order requiring "Texas sluts" to be immunized against the human papilloma virus (HPV). It's a one paragraph bill backed by a handful of Democrats, and every Republican minus Chisum and 2 others (not including Craddick) have signed on as co-authors (please excuse me for not checking the other two).

In the Senate, SB 438 was just referred to the Health & Human Services committee yesterday. I haven't heard when either are headed for their respective floor.

I'll actually side with the Republicans on this one. Legality of the order aside, unfunded mandates are rarely Kosher for me. Currently, those who qualify for Medicaid can receive certain immunizations, including HPV, through the Vaccines for Children Program. Others have to pay upwards of $300 for the shot. Requiring every child to get this shot is just another boondoggle for Perry's friends, such as last session's SBC lobbyist (remember how much I loved that telecom bill?) and former Perry staffer Mike Toomey.

This isn't to say I'm against the vaccine by any means. I'm all for an educational campaign to teach parents its merits, as outlined by Rep. Farrar's bill, HB 215; I'd even advocate attaching the pertinent language in that bill as an amendment to HB 1098 (and have the state pay for it if it was to require it....) But leave the decision up to the family who'd be paying for it.

Granted, I know that there are plenty of misconceptions about the HPV shot, if yesterday's hearing was any indication -- that's why there ought to be the education campaign.....but nothing more.

P.S. Someone please tell the Dallas Morning News that you can't have your cake and eat it too: They applaud HB 1098 getting voted out of committee, then directs them, well specifically Chair Delisi, to support Farrar's bill. Uh, do you want the mandate or not?

UPDATE: Rep. Joe Deshotel's HB 1379, which carries the educational language I support, was also voted out of Public Health yesterday by a vote of 9-0.

A Closer Look at the Coal Plants Reveals Something Unsettling, Irresponsible

2007-02-21T11:11:00.000-06:00

Much has been said, good and bad, about the Coal Plants this session. "Texas currently face a looming shortfall in needed electricity supply," claims Curt Seidlits, in the letter that prefaces TXU's several hundred page lobby binder. "For Texas to retain our economic vigor, national security, and environmental health, we must continue to invest in clean energy solutions," counters an info sheet from Alliance for a Clean Texas, a group of the state's premier environmental lobby groups. What is this debate really about? Economic engines, environmental health, or the proper use of taxpayer dollars?

TXU's arguments for their 11 of the 19 total proposed coal-fired units is the need to accommodate new growth in Texas. However, looking at the facts and the changing national political scene, one must question whether this is truly the case.

The numbers in TXU's binder are easy to manipulate. "Peak demand" is subjective, and it's obvious that Sens. Fraser and Eltife have an increasing short attention span for TXU's lobbyists. After all, ERCOT claims that we'll have energy shortfall in 2008 based on current energy suppliers, and the earliest the coal plants would come up is 2009 by TXU's projections, even though it may actually be closer to 2011.

Something still rubbed me the wrong way about these plans until Steve Susman, a lawyer suing TXU pro bono, said something last night at Waco's Convention Center: that TXU is rushing to build the coal plants because of the very real prospect of a cap-and-trade incentive program. Cap-and-trade would provide financial incentives to a company that emits carbon dioxide into the air. However, carbon dioxide is not currently regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency. Something clicked.

The national political scene is currently changing. November's elections shocked many, and TXU was probably no exception. Democratic Presidential nominees are now vying for position since the time seems ripe for a Blue White House and Congress. Based on Sen. Obama openly discussing cap-and-trade programs, there is little doubt that such a program will take effect soon.

But how soon? Looking back on some of the major environmental reforms, they've taken place in the last two years of a Republican's term: Nixon and Bush 1 come to mind. Since George W. finally recognized "climate change" in this year's State of the Union, he might write something up before he leaves D.C. If he does, rest assured that it would heavily favor industry, if his energy bill acts as any precursor.

In strict terms, this means that TXU will want to pump as much CO₂ into the air as possible so that they can get paid to take it down in a few years. It's a plan that sacrifices the health and well-being of the residents of Waco, the Metroplex, and dozens of small towns in between for the well-being of TXU's already overpaid executives. If all the plants go ahead and the cap-and-trade comes into affect as TXU plans, they would stand to profit in the hundreds of millions, possibly billions, in taxpayer dollars.

What's being done

Yesterday, former Advocacy, Inc. lawyer and current Travis County District Judge Steven Yelenosky ruled that Gov. Perry overstepped his bounds as Governor in issuing his executive order. Administrative hearings on 7 of the coal-fired units were set to take place an hour ago, and much remains to be seen as to how far-reaching Yelenosky's ruling will be. Regardless, some will still be fighting, in courts and in the Lege, for the health of the state's citizens, and all I can say is Godspeed.

Related links:

Convicted in Absentia by Paul Burka

Something New Under the Sun by Garnet Coleman

Musings on SCR 20

2007-02-20T13:32:00.000-06:00

Could someone please tell Will Hartnett that the horse is supposed to go before the cart?

UPDATE: Paul Burka caught this one too.

HJR 1 voted out

2007-02-19T15:31:00.000-06:00

...Well, actually it's SJR 13, which was substituted for HJR 1. It did have true bi-partisan support, 146-0.

The House in a State of Emergency

2007-02-19T10:53:00.000-06:00

Unfortunately, House members are not observing President's Day

Today at 2pm, the House is set to take up HJR 1 and HB 2, and tomorrow will be SCR 20.

The way it's set up, HB 5 (which is in Calendars committee and doesn't have a floor date yet) is the enabling legislation for HJR 1 -- the constitutional amendment proposal that would allow for tax breaks for seniors (65 and older) and disabled who have homestead exemptions. HJR 1 actually has bi-partisan support and would be placed on the ballot May 12, if it's voted out by Wednesday. HB 5, the enabling legislation, has a fiscal note of -$277 million over the next two years and -$745 million through the end of the 2012 fiscal year.

HB 2 carries a hefty price tag of $14.191.1 billion over the next two years alone, and it would take $4.9 billion from General Revenue -- via the "Foundation School Fund", Fund 193 -- that could fund any number of things outside of rich folks' homes. HB 2 is on the floor for today, and does not break the spending cap by itself. However, if the Lege wants to pass any other appropriations, it would have to pass SCR 20, which would break the cap while calling for the property tax cuts. Not 1 single rep on Appropriations voted against HB 2, but Reps. Noriega and Hopson voted against SCR 20 in committee. The other Dems passed on voting altogether, not wanting to anger Uncle Tom (...hat tip to Paul Moreno).

As to why this coming through 'lightning fast,' right now, your guess is as good as mine. Just hope you weren't fooled by the HR 4 debacle.

Happy Valentine's Day! (oh, and I'm back in action)

2007-02-14T18:27:00.000-06:00

Hello Texas Politico Blogosphere,

First, Happy Valentine's Day. This legislative session, we'll need to share the love to get business done, so I figured it'd be an appropriate day to announce that I'm back. For those who didn't read me last time, I'm a wonk through and through as well as a critic of so much of what happens at 1100 Congress Ave, from the left to right. I like dissecting policy and don't care much for the politics of it all (such as, when did Talton become a Democrat? ;)

Since we're still (relatively) close to the new year, I'll make a few resolutions:

First, I vow to not let spammers overrun my blog entries. I was not happy to see 47 nonsensical comments on my last post.

Second, I vow not to crap out towards the end of session. As session really got down to it, I'd realized that maintaining a free blog wasn't at the top of my priorities as I was managing a time schedule that equaled two to two-and-a-half full-time work weeks. So, to help in my tracking of the absurd, I've recruited the help of a good friend who also wishes to remain anonymous. I figure that between the both of us, we'll have regularly updated entires of the latest in policy affecting the good people of this state. And we may actually add to the number of our authors, so stayed tuned for all of the latest developments.

Again, I sincerely apologize for dropping out so hard last session; I'll try my hardest not to do it again. I hope you enjoy the blog, and I hope to talk to many of you soon!

-Ima

Talton's anti-gay foster parent amendment now has a chance

2005-04-27T16:04:00.000-05:00

In a much shorter post than expected today, I announce that Hupp announced the House members to the conference committee of Senate Bill 6. Robert Talton (R-Pasadena), who authored an amendment to ban gay foster parents, will join Hupp, Toby Goodman, John Davis, and Carlos Uresti on the committee. This gives Talton a chance to fight for the amendment, but it's still unlikely that the amendment will be on the final version of the bill.

HB 1006 passed

2005-04-26T12:33:00.000-05:00

Well, AutoCraddick pushed through revenue caps bill HB 1006 to engrossment. He overruled points of order left and right, voted on amendments and the bill itself, and even denied Dunnam on a verification of votes. It was a tad disgraceful...

On a side note: I slacked a bit yesterday on the posts, but I'll put something up later today.

Talton's amendment to suffer a timely death

2005-04-22T09:32:00.000-05:00

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram today reports that the author and sponsor strongly object to an amendment Robert Talton (R-Pasadena), which would ban homosexual and bisexual couples from being foster parents:

"I will strenuously object to that amendment going onto the bill," said state Sen. Jane Nelson, R-Lewisville.

...

Nelson said she is concerned that the ban on gay foster parents, pushed by state Rep. Robert Talton, R-Pasadena, would probably become a magnet for lawsuits and that it might cause upheaval for the thousands of children in homes where the foster parents might be gay or bisexual.

The House sponsor of Senate Bill 6, state Rep. Suzanna Gratia Hupp, R-Lampasas, said she would not support uprooting children already in a foster home.

Pink Dome posted on Wednesday links to a slew of bloggers covering the issue (hey, I'm at the bottom of the comments section!!)

I don't know who all saw CNN yesterday, but they covered the issue as well. They interviewed Talton and set up a debate between Cathie Adams of the Texas Eagle Forum and Heath Riddles (who the kept calling Randall Ellis, the Executive Director) of The Lesbian/Gay Rights Lobby of Texas (LGRL). The debate was a bit ridiculous, but Cathie Adams stated that a child with gay foster parents are 11 times more susceptible to being sexually abused.

The website for the Texas Eagle Forum lists her e-mail address: cathieadams@texaseagle.org.

HB 1006 pulled down again

2005-04-22T09:05:00.000-05:00

For the second time, the House debated HB 1006, and for the second time the debate went nowhere. Republicans still don't have the votes to push it through, so they ended the House floor much earlier than expected. Today will be a long day since Representatives didn't even touch any of the other bills they were supposed to vote on yesterday, but HB 1006 will have to wait a while for another floor debate.

Kudos to Rep. Fred Hill (R-Richardson) for his integral role in working against HB 1006 - he was key during both of the bill's debates, despite objections from fellow Republicans.

Today, the San Antonio Express-News reported on how Comal County's budget has increased at a rate far beyond inflation.

Last year, indigent health care went $369,000 over budget.

Expenses for public defenders went $83,000 over budget, and the cost of housing juveniles in detention centers also went $83,000 over budget.

Other major factors were autopsies, which went $39,600 over budget, and vehicle repairs, which went $39,000 over. Courthouse security was also a major unbudgeted expense, Ferrell said.

Sen. Hinojosa faces police retaliation over bills

2005-04-22T08:49:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, Grits for Breakfast posted a story about how members of a South Texas drug task force have retaliated against state Sen. Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa for his bills to increase accountability of the drug task forces.

I've been asked to help circulate this as much as possible, so please forward the link to your co-workers and friends to increase awareness of this problem since these drug task forces do need more oversight.

School technology bill slips through

2005-04-21T10:49:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, the House approved HB 4 with little debate. In fact only 5 amendments were offered and all but one - by Charlie Howard [PDF], which would have given the State Board of Education more control over textbooks. Howard's amendment was his HB 220 - a favor to SBOE member Terri Leo to try to cut evolution and paste creationism, or t(pr)each abstinence-only sex ed.

HB 4, highly touted by Ross Perot for its strides towards increased technology use in classrooms, will soon move to the Senate for debate. Out of the state's technology allocation - $150 per student - HB 4 would require that $60 per student be designated for a grant program for eligible school districts. However, the Houston Chronicle reported that "The state pays for textbooks, but HB 4 would require districts to put up $50 per student to qualify for the $300 grants."

Considering that schools would have to spend $50 per student to be eligible for the program, basically only the rich schools would get the grants - it is estimated that only 20 percent of school districts would qualify. On top of that, the Legislative Budget Board estimates that the state will have to spend $1.2 billion dollars through FY2010. HB 2 only allocated $3 billion in new money to schools, but this money only offsets inflation and restores cuts from last session. So, I see HB 4 as a way to skirt giving state money to all school districts - this would only consider the richer school districts.

And who's behind this bill? Apple executive Tom Burnett was one of three authors of the "The Texas E-Learning Initiative," which made many recommendations that were key parts of HB 4 (according to the same Houston Chronicle article). Dell backs the measure too.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for technology. I'm all for quality education. I'm all for textbooks that don't list Ann Richards as the current governor of Texas. But the Devil's in the details, and I'm all for giving Texas students the same chances of succeeding, and that's where HB 4 falls short.

Well-funded anti-tax scare tactics

2005-04-20T10:20:00.000-05:00

Today the Austin American-Statesman reported that Governor Rick Perry's office is soliciting over $1 million from lobbyists to pay for a grassroots campaign to support lowering property taxes through measures like HB 1006.

NOTE: The House has already killed HJR 35 and HB 784, the appraisal caps bills, meaning those two issues won't be brought up until the 80^th Legislative session - well, barring any special session called.

Delisi asked lobbyists to consider paying for nearly $690,000 in radio spots in Austin and eight other cities, according to a copy of her presentation.

Three waves of mailings targeting more than 100,000 Republican voters would cost $282,000. About $100,000 would be spent on polling, and another $100,000 would cover follow-up phone calls to recipients of the mailers.

...

Perry on Tuesday kept up his press to restrict local taxes.

The Republican governor told Austin's KVET radio that unless lawmakers rein in local property taxes, homeowners will be overwhelmed.

"You're going to have senior citizens have to move out of their homes," Perry said.

The darker side of privatized case management

2005-04-20T10:10:00.000-05:00

Yesterday the House passed CSSB 6 to engrossment by a 126-16 vote and will vote it out to the Senate in the coming days.

Dallas Morning News reported on Saturday the darker side of case management: "Private contractors that handle three-fourths of Texas' foster care have placed children with foster parents who later abused, molested or neglected them or even disappeared with kids in their care, records reveal."

Jack Downey, president and CEO of the Children's Shelter in San Antonio, made the case for privatization by saying: " Any businessperson knows the most expensive resource is people. By eliminating many caseworkers from the state rolls, more than $900 million could be saved." Okay, I understand that you're trying to save the state money, but who says that the private sector will ensure that enough caseworkers are hired? If non-profits are worried most about their bottom line, as Downey alludes to, then who says that caseworkers won't be more overworked and overburdened than they are now?

CSSB 6 would add 848 new case investigators by 2007 and add $250 million to the agency's budget, so my fear is that any improvements through privatization of these services will be attributed to privatization, not the added money and personnel by the state. I thought privatization was supposed to save the state money, not cost it money.

The House responded yesterday not by slowing privatization, which will completely privatize CPS over the next 6 years (except the initial case investigations) - affecting 26,000 foster children, but by passing an amendment ensuring that gay people can't step in as trustworthy foster parents. Makes sense: foster children need foster parents, so bar those eager to fill the needed role. Congratulations Talton for showing your hateful side at every chance you get.

Denny's poll tax bill sent back to committee

2005-04-20T09:59:00.000-05:00

HB 1706 by Mary Denny (R-Flower Mound) was sent back to committee yesterday for further consideration.

Off the Kuff and In the Pink - Texas outline their feelings on the bill pretty well.

Shouldn't there be amendments to deal with Black Box voting or is that not really a problem?

Gas tax bill may die

2005-04-15T10:47:00.000-05:00

The Austin American-Statesman reported yesterday that the option for a local 3 or 4 cent gas tax, supported by Rep. Mike Krusee (R-Round Rock) and Rep. Mark Strama (D-Austin), may not receive enough support to move through the Lege this session. The bill proposes relieving some of the burden brought on drivers by proposed Central Texas toll roads.

Hrm, though I don't support "double-taxing" citizens, I don't understand the notion of taxing every driver on the road by raising gas prices. The reason why these citizens say they are up in arms is because they don't want to pay to drive to work everyday - but a measure like this would tax everyone, not just a small portion of society that drives along certain roads. It's a move in the wrong direction. But I guess that's why it's not going anywhere.

Road signs soon to commemorate W

2005-04-15T08:51:00.000-05:00

Now that the House has killed appraisal caps and sent revenue caps back to committee, members will debate HB 137 on Monday, which would require that:

A "Welcome to Texas" sign erected by the department must include the following elements:
(1) a depiction of the state flag;
(2) the phrase "Drive Friendly--The Texas Way"; and
(3) the phrase "Welcome to Texas--Proud to be the Home of President George W. Bush,"

which would change all 66 welcome signs in Texas.

I wish I could propose an amendment to say: "Proud to now be the Home of Connecticut-native [President] George W. Bush," or "Proud to be the Vacation Home of President George W. Bush."

Why do our lawmakers have such an infatuation with changing our road signs to honor partisan politicians?

House to debate HB 1006

2005-04-13T13:49:00.000-05:00

Today, the House of Representatives is set to debate the revenue caps set out by HB 1006.

Earlier today, the Dallas Morning News reported on how some have labeled the revenue caps "a bit hypocritical" since local governments must meet certain unfunded state mandates without the ability to raise taxes. There have been warnings "that if the bill passes, fees will go up for libraries, parks and swimming pools, and taxing entities will issue more bonds to pay for expenses."

Also, cities and counties have praised the demise of appraisal cap bill.

On an unrelated note, Rep. Ray Allen (R-Grand Prairie) presented and passed House Resolution 948, recognizing Texas counties "for their countless contributions to the betterment of the Lone Star State" on County Government Day - today, April 13, 2005. The resolution also recognized members of the Texas Association of Counties, who had Dr. Ray Perryman actively lobby against [PDF] HJR 35 and its enabling legislation, HB 784 - which has been postponed in light of yesterday's result. It's too bad that Allen didn't move to place all Rep's names on the resolution.

HJR 35 killed

2005-04-12T14:28:00.000-05:00

Rep. Villarreal's (D-San Antonio) Amendment 1 to kill HJR 35 (see below for more info.) was passed, which tabled the bill. Rep. Bohac (R-Houston) motioned to re-commit the bill. Then, Rep. Hill (R-Richardson) killed the bill on a point of order.

So, the constitutional amendment is dead. I take it that HB 784 will die tomorrow, but it leaves HB 1006's future in question. We'll see tomorrow.

Favorite quotes on HJR 35 debate

2005-04-12T14:16:00.000-05:00

As Rep. McReynolds (Dem.--against the bill) spoke passionately against HJR 35, the appraisal caps constitutional amendement, I was still recovering from the laughing. Here are my favorite quotes that I just heard watching HJR 35:

(Rep. Villareal has proposed Amendment 1 to kill the entire bill; many got up to the front and back mic's to speak on the bill)

Rep. Hill (Rep.--against the bill): "You’ve gotta kill the snake when you have the hoe in your hand." (seconded by Casteel a few times)

Rep. Leibowitz (Dem.--for the bill): "Roar like a lion."
"Break yoke of slavery."
"We all have a different recipe for the sausage."

Local control over taxes would dwindle under appraisal and tax cap plans

2005-04-11T16:53:00.000-05:00

Alternate title: "More regressive taxes on the way"

HJR 35 to be heard tomorrow on House floor;
HB 784, 1006 to be heard Wednesday

HJR 35 and HB 784, both filed by Dwayne Bohac (R-Houston), would implement new appraisal caps at 5 percent, which is lower than the current 10 percent cap set in 1997. The current cap, which applies only to residential homes, has already "cost local governments millions, and that the cap protects properties that tend to increase fastest in value," according to the San Antonio Express-News.

Appraisal caps seek to place a limit on the taxes paid by homeowners. While the proponents of appraisal caps claim that these measures would provide a great relief to homeowners everywhere, critics point to who would benefit the most - as you may have guessed, the numbers suggest that the richest Texans would receive the greatest windfall: those with property whose value increases the most are those who would benefit the most. Conversely, this means that the lower the price of the home, the less of a tax break that homeowner would receive. According to a CPPP Policy Page [PDF], "More than half of the benefit of the current 10 percent cap goes to families with incomes over $97,000 a year ... This tendency is so strong that the one-tenth of Texas families with incomes over $136,000 reap more than one-third of the benefit of the current cap."

HB 784 proposes lowering the appraisal cap to 5 percent, a move that Governor Rick Perry proposed during his "State of the State" address. Both Perry and Bohac have called the rising value of homes an "appraisal creep."

Despite the attempts by certain GOP members to drum up support for appraisal caps, it is possible that Republicans can't get 100 votes for HB 784 and its required constitutional amendment, HJR 35. If those two bills fail to pass, then HB 1006 - by Rep. Carl Isett (R-Lubbock) - would step in as Plan B. Instead of appraisal caps (that require a constitutional amendement), Isett's bill would force an automatic rollback election if overall tax revenue that a municipality raises exceeds 3 percent (this does not require a constitutional amendment).

NOTE: HB 1006 was once an amendment attached to HB 3 but was later pulled.

Consequences for municipalities

By restricting the amount of money that local governments may collect, HB 784 and HB 1006 would therefore restrict the amount of money that the local government may spend - consequently boosting the role of state government by determining what are currently decisions by local governments.

Fort Worth Mayor Mike Moncrief decried both appraisal and tax revenue caps, stating that "local officials know best what is needed to provide for their communities." He added, "If the state wants to provide police and fire protection and infrastructure for our cities, then fine, I'll get out of the business and go lower my golf handicap. This jerks the rug out from under local government and takes away our ability to do our job."

Municipal services include not only police and fire protection but also street maintenance and trash services.

Consequences for real estate

Regarding only HB 784 and HJR 35, the CPPP Policy Page on appraisal caps includes one aspect of appraisal caps not widely discussed: the negative impacts on the real estate market. It uses an example that they dub "Welcome, Stranger:" under a scenario where two neighbors pay the same in property taxes, when one sells their home, the hidden costs of the appraisal cap would be transferred on to the home buyer. The newcomer ("the stranger") would pay the taxes determined by the full market value of the home, whereas the neighbor who did not move would pay only the fraction taxes, as determined by the appraisal cap.

The policy page continues to say that local governments could therefore opt to lure in businesses, whose sales taxes (expanded under HB 3) could bring in additional revenues. Sales taxes would not be negatively - or positively, for that matter - by appraisal caps outlined in HB 784 and HJR 35.

The Texas Association of Realtors testified against Bohac's two proposals.

Consequences for businesses

Dr. Ray Perryman contends the opposite of CPPP's predictions for businesses: that new businesses would be negatively impacted by appraisal caps. His report [PDF] states that:

Appraisal caps penalize business startups. In an appreciating market, valuation change limitations benefit existing property owners at the expense of new buyers. For example, a business owner who had owned a location for many years might be paying taxes far below a competitor who recently purchased. This reduces the capacity of new owners to compete effectively, with corresponding detrimental effects on consumers.

Not to mention that the Texas Association of Business opposes these plans, the pro-property tax relief Dr. Perryman has been actively lobbying for the Texas Municipal League, Texas Association of Counties, and Texas Conference of Urban Counties against these proposed caps.

Personally, I see these proposals as boons only to current businesses and the richest citizens, the latter of which comprises a small minority of Texans. In light of the other tax bills proposed this session, this is bad, unsustainable public policy that continues mislead Texans away from true progress.

House budget bills to be debated today - making for a very, very long day

2005-04-06T11:25:00.000-05:00

CSSB 1 [PDF] would increase spending for fiscal years (FY) 2006 and 2007 by 8.6 percent over the current biennium.

CSSB 1 would increase spending by:
-$5.3 billion for public education - 15.2 percent increase;
-$4.4 billion for Health and Human Services - 10.1 percent increase;
-$536 million for higher education - 3.2 percent increase; and
-$2.9 billion for business and economic development - 18.4 percent increase.

Would decrease spending by:
-$103 million for natural resources - 4.4 percent decrease.

Comparison: The budget proposal under CSSB 1 is $1.8 billion less than SB 1, which would spend a total of $139.3 billion. CSSB 1 would allocate $1 billion less than SB 1 for higher education, but CSSB 1 would allocate $2.8 billion more for public education than SB 1.

"Corporate Slush Funds": Well, at least in the words of my favorite firecracker, Rep. Garnet Coleman. The Texas Enterprise Fund (TEF), which received $295 million last biennium, is slated to receive $140.7 million from CSSB 1, with the possibility of another $130 million through a contingency rider on SB 1177 - a bill that has to do with the Skills Development Holding Fund.

However, there is a handful of amendments that would strip all TEF allocations to spend on other state programs. So far, I have seen no amendments that would strip the money from the "Emerging Technologies Fund," which is a very similar fund to the TEF. The proposed fund would allocate more money to institutions of higher education for technology transfer, which is a process that brings university research to the market. Although I have yet to see one, I thought there could be an amendment to re-allocate some or all money for this fund to TEXAS Grants, since the popular grant program would be cut.

The TEXAS Grant program received $324 million in FY2004-2005, which was $188 million short of being fully funded. In 2004, 30,000 students did not receive the grant due to cuts, and roughly 49,000 students will not receive the grant this year. CSSB 1 proposes cutting TEXAS Grants by only $1.5 million, for a total allocation of nearly $323 million for FY2006-2007.

HB 10 is a supplement to the House budget, CSSB 1, which would allocate money for the state to spend immediately. HB 10 would spend $850 million from General Revenue and would re-designate $1.91 billion in money currently in the rainy day fund to spend on Health and Human Services, Child Protective Services (CPS), and public education.

Specifically, HB 10 would give:

$767.6 million to public education for Fiscal Year (FY) 2005 - for textbooks, teacher certification, and for the health insurance passthrough through the Teacher Retirement System (TRS);

$735.4 million to public education for FY2006 and FY2007. TRS would also receive $200 million for health insurance for retirees for FY2006 and FY2007;

$1.2 billion to Medicaid;

$234.6 million to the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP);

$85.6 million to the Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC); and

$382.3 million to CPS.

Both bills will be debated today on the House floor.

For-profit companies could determine future of troubled children

2005-04-06T11:15:00.000-05:00

Child Protective Services (CPS) currently contracts certain services with private companies: 75 percent of the children in foster care, as well as adoption services. The Health and Human Services Commission recommends that the Legislature privatize some, but not all, case management services to the private sector. The HHSC is not currently considering privatizing investigations that CPS currently conducts.

UPDATE #2: However, CSSB 6, by Sen. Jane Nelson (R-Lewisville), would privatize almost 100% of CPS services by 2009. UPDATE #1 (thank you Kimberly) CSSB 6 would privatize all CPS services, including case management functions that are not currently performed by private agencies, except for investigations - the initial decision to remove a child from their home.

CSSB 6 would reserve that decision for CPS to make, but once removed from their home, a child's future would be determined by private companies since they would have a substantial role in determining a child's legal status, meaning if they should go back to their home, another foster home, etc. This means private - for-profit and non-profit - companies could profit off a child being removed from their home.

See CPPP's CPS policy page [PDF]

Services not currently privatized that would be under CSSB 6 include: having a role in determining the child's legal status, selecting a caregiver for the child, preparing court reports for approval by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS), and attending court hearings concerning a child in child care.

Unfortunately, privatization fails to address obtaining adequate services, reducing caseloads, and reducing turnover. There is little evidence to show that full privatization would lead to increase quality of services. Scott McCown, executive director of the Center for Public Policy Priorities, says that "nothing inherent in privatization will solve the toughest crises facing the agency: a shortage of well-trained workers, a dearth of good-quality foster homes, and insufficient social services, such as mental health and drug and alcohol counseling." It is also unclear as to how much oversight CSSB 6 would provide.

CPS costs could actually increase under CSSB 6 due to an added layer of bureaucracy - an "independent administrator" that would oversee and coordinate efforts between the state and private sector services.

McCown was also quoted: "Who might have that job? Lockheed Martin, Accenture, [and] the children's division of Enron."

CSSB 6 was voted out of committee yesterday, and it will be heard on the House floor soon.

Top Ten bills voted out of committee

2005-04-05T19:01:00.000-05:00

Well in a sharp turn around of what I thought would take another few weeks, West's SB 333 and SB 936 were voted out of the Senate Higher Education Subcommittee today. They will now go to the Senate Education Committee for debate.

Water conservation bill introduced Monday

2005-04-05T12:08:00.000-05:00

SB 3 by Ken Armbrister (D-Victoria) is a key piece of water conservation legislation that has taken eight years of bipartisan cooperation to produce, and many environmentalists are claiming this as a huge victory. Environmental groups are joining cattle raisers, farmers, and wildlife associations in backing this 50-year water proposal.

The management plan is necessary to assure clean water to cities and farmers over the next 35 years, when the state's population is expected to double, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst said, acccording to the Dallas Morning News. Carrying out this proposal will be helped by the $15 million "Know Your Water IQ" education campaign - from the same firm that developed "Don't mess with Texas" campaign.

The most controversial part of the plan is to implement a 13 cent tax for every 1,000 gallons past the first 5,000 gallons of water for businesses and households. However, governmental and religious, educational, and public service organizations would be exempted from the proposed tax. SB 3 would also include a new fee on water for the manufacturing that is provided by a public utility. The fees would raise an estimated $125 million annually - to pay for water projects such as reservoirs and pipes, according to the San Antonio Express-News. Chris Bell, who is interested in running in the 2006 gubernatorial race, is getting in his political jabs now by declaring the 13 cent tax a "new tax on being alive," but proponents of the measure point to the fact that most households only use roughly 5,000 gallons of water per month, meaning this measure would only penalize "water hoggers."

A seemingly less controversial part of the plan would create a Water Infrastructure Fund, as a special fund outside of the treasury, which would receive revenue from Water Conservation and Development Fee and other water-related fees. The Fund would be allowed to make grants to outside entities. A statewide program would also be established to assist economically disadvantaged communities. The program would allocate grants and loans to areas that have inadequate water supply or sewer services and inadequate financial resources. Economically disadvantaged communities would be defined as an area whose median income does not exceed 75 percent of the median state household income.

The focus of the bill is to provide greater protection for Texas rivers, streams, bays, and estuaries, and this would be accomplished through new management structures. SB 3 would:

Reauthorize Environmental Flows Commission (EFC), which would appoint the Texas Environmental Flows Science Advisory Committee (SAC) to monitor flow studies and methodologies for rivers, streams, bays, and estuaries. Using the recommendations of the SAC, the EFC would establish local bay/basin area stakeholder groups to address the needs of the given area.

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality would incorporate the work of the EFC and the SAC in the decision-making process.

Create Groundwater Management Area Councils (GMACs) to provide coordination and consistency in each of the state's 16 groundwater management areas. The current Texas Water Development Board's limited "checklist" review of groundwater districts' management plans would be replaced with a plan for the TWDB and the GMACs to provide a new management framework. The framework would consist of the TWDB, GMACs, and Groundwater Conservation Districts (GWCDs) working together to implement rules in a GMA-oriented management of groundwater.

To clarify, the EFC, SAC, and TCEQ work together in one organizational matrix, and the TWDB, GMACs, and GWCDs work in another. The EFC, SAC, and TCEQ would focus on preservation of rivers, streams, bays, and estuaries, and the TWDB, GMACs, and GWCDs would deal with groundwater and aquifers, like the Edwards Aquifer.

Skills Development vs. Private Enterprise Incentives

2005-04-04T19:49:00.000-05:00

See CPPP's policy page [PDF]

Today, the Center for Public Policy Priorities (CPPP) released a new policy page on how the Senate wants to shift money away from the successful Skills Development Fund (SDF) to the controversial Texas Entreprise Fund (TEF) [PDF] for job training. Basically, it would take Texas tax dollars away from paying for current jobs to be used to attract currently out-of-state business through the TEF.

The policy page also includes a brief on SB 1177, by Sen. Todd Staples (R-Palestine). Contigent on the passage of SB 1177, SB 1 would transfer another $10.2 million to the SDF from the Smart Jobs Holding Fund, which would be re-named the Skills Development Holding Fund. SB 1177 would assign 0.1% of employers’ unemployment insurance tax to the new holding fund, as assessed by Texas Workforce Commission.

Other key findings by the page include:
Over the past three years, the Skills Development Fund has financed training programs for 15,559 new jobs and 28,832 incumbent jobs ... The economic impact of the Skills Development Fund amounts to an additional $72 million in statewide payroll.

...

Currently, the biennial appropriation for the Skills Development Fund is $24.5 million. Included in TWC's Legislative Appropriations Request (LAR) was a proposal to
nearly double the Skills Development Fund appropriation level to $49.5 million for 2006-2007.

...

Despite the overwhelming demand for skills development, the Senate version of the 2006-07 state budget (SB 1) would reduce the SDF appropriation to $9.9 million per biennium. With a 60% reduction, TWC would only be able to train approximately 6,000 workers per year, compared to about 15,000 workers with current funding. The House budget committee’s proposal would appropriate $20 million to the Skills Development Fund.

...

While some monies have been designated for infrastructure and community development, the Enterprise Fund has dipped into the Skills Development Fund to secure working training for economic development projects, including at least $3 million each for the Toyota and Tyson deals. While current Skills Development funding is only 8% of the Enterprise Fund allocation, committed Enterprise Fund projects could consume up to 60% of the Senate appropriation for Skills Development.

...

The Enterprise Fund should assume 100% of related project costs, including worker training, either through reimbursing the Skills Development Fund or including a job-training setaside within a specific Enterprise Fund grant.

Top Ten debate shaping up

2005-04-04T18:53:00.000-05:00

See Saturday's Houston Chronicle editorial on Top Ten

On March 30, students from the University of Texas, Texas A&M, LULAC, and UT Watch spent a few hours at the Senate Subcommittee on Higher Education to testify in support of SB 333, authored by Sen. Royce West (D-Dallas), which would add a recommended high school curriculum that would include a requirement to take more Advanced Placement classes, or an equivalent, if offered. No one testified in opposition to this bill - well, the witness list showed one who registered in opposition, but it also listed the same person as testifying in favor of the bill.

The majority of the testimonies relied on arguments that Top Ten boosts not only racial diversity but class diversity (or, what they called "geographic diversity") by having institutions of higher education admit more students from rural areas, which generally have fewer resources than schools in more urban areas. Many also pointed to recent reports, such as that by the UT Admissions Office [PDF], which show that students admitted under Top Ten succeed at a higher rate once in college than those students not admitted under the law. Table 6 of this report shows that Top Ten college students have higher GPAs than other college students.

How Texans stand: according to the Corpus Christi Caller Times, 82 percent of Texans support the current Top Ten plan.

There were also several students and community members who made appearances at the hearing to testify for SB 320, authored by Sen. Jeff Wentworth (R-San Antonio), which would flat out repeal the law. Among those who showed up were members of the Young Conservatives of Texas. The right-leaning arguments heard for SB 320 were that universities ought to use more of a holistic approach to admitting high school students that looks at more than simply class rank.

Many pointed to the argument that students who attend highly competitive urban schools but graduate within the top eleven or twelve percent of their graduating class are unfairly discriminated against university admissions offices.

All in all, Top Ten will be a key debate during this Legislative session that is so heavily focusing on education. So far Wentworth claims he has roughly 15 senators on his side, as does West. Aside from Rep. Beverly Woolley's HB 750, which is a House companion bill to SB 320, all of the Top Ten bills will only cap the law - so these are essentially the two most politically polarized bills on the matter this session, and they're also the ones with the most promise of advancing. And they're both by well-known and heavily respected Senators. So I'm sure it doesn't hurt that West chairs the Senate Subcommittee on Higher Education - the committee that will hear each Top Ten bill.

Convicted felons could be carrying guns in a mall near you

2005-03-30T15:00:00.000-06:00

In perhaps my last post of the day to make up for my inactivity during the Easter weekend, I want to announce that HB 1393 by Rep. Kino Flores (D-Mission) was approved during second reading today and passed to engrossment. HB 1393 would exempt corporate private security forces from felony background checks and fingerprinting by the state's Private Security Board. Its companion bill, SB 622 by Sen. Florence Shapiro (R-Plano) is still in the Senate Business & Commerce Committee.

If passed, guards hired through a private security force employment company would not be exempted. HB 1393 would only apply to those hired individually or "in house" private security.

Gambling rally tomorrow

2005-03-30T14:07:00.000-06:00

Tomorrow there will be a rally by conservative folks on the South Steps to urge legislators to vote against current gambling proposals, such as those proposed by Rep. Turner (D-Houston). As I reported earlier, gambling could be the only issue that the Democrats have any leverage on since Republicans are scared of their constituents - such as those who will show up on the South Steps tomorrow.

Some of the more moderate Dem's are interested in passing gambling, and the budget proposals were written on the assumption that some gambling proposal of some form will pass (apparently the House budget proposal is already $600 million short because of this, which is in addition to the $600 million that lawmakers are expecting from the "rainy day fund").

But look for some Democrats to make it to the rally.

Budget bill to use rainy day fund: "It's raining" says Committee Chair

2005-03-30T11:28:00.000-06:00

The House budget bills, HB 1- the main budget and HB 10- the supplemental budget, were passed out of the Appropriations Committee last night, and they will be heard on the House floor next Wednesday.

The Austin American-Statesman reports that $600 million from the rainy day fund would flow into HB 1, and HB 10 draws on $1.3 billion in "rainy day" money to pay for needs including Child Protective Services, textbooks, Medicaid and CHIP. Appropriations Chair Jim Pitts (R-Waxahachie) stated "It is raining. We have some needs."

HB 1 allocates $1.5 billion less than SB 1, the Senate' budget proposal. Some of the differences between the $137.5 billion House plan and $139 billion Senate plan are (from the same AAS article):

The House plan also calls for a 3.2 percent increase in spending on higher education, less than the 8 percent approved by the Senate.

Public schools would reap 15 percent more, counting state and federal aid, and health and human services spending would rise 10 percent. Business and economic development aid would increase 18 percent.

The House budget calls for a 3 percent pay raise for state workers but doesn't include the money for it, falling far short of the two yearly 4.5 percent raises approved by the Senate.

Like the Senate approach, the House plan restores eye care and dental benefits for participants in the Children's Health Insurance Program and maintains the partial restoration of mental health benefits put in place last year. It does not, however, restore any of the optional Medicaid services for adults, such as hearing aids and mental health counseling, that the Senate backed.

The House plan includes $3 billion in additional public education spending, assuming lawmakers approve a version of the school finance plan endorsed earlier this month by the House. The Senate budget funded public education but left specifics to its Education Committee.

Telecom opposition going a little too far

2005-03-30T11:05:00.000-06:00

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports that Rep. Phil King's government offices in Austin and Weatherford received two letters that alleged to contain anthrax: they were covered in white power and said "By the way, enjoy the anthrax."

Uh... writing an irresponsible bill leading to higher phone rates is by no means grounds for threatening his - as well as each member of his family's - life.

Another HB 2 update

2005-03-30T10:51:00.000-06:00

Right now, the massive plan to overhaul schools - HB 2 - is in the Senate. Members of the Senate Education Committee heard testimony that the plan, if implemented, would cripple schools, reports the Houston Chronicle.

Check out some of my past posts: here, here, here, here, and here.

Part of U.S. 290 to be re-named for Ronald Reagan

2005-03-24T15:21:00.000-06:00

After the House had voted nearly in unison for HB 789, the floor debate spiraled down to partisan politics to debate re-naming the section of U.S. 290 that's in Harris County, in Houston, as the Ronald Reagan Memorial Highway. The funds to change it will be paid for privately.

It was fun to watch Rep. Jessica Farrar (D-Houston) throw out amendments to name it for Ex-President Dwight Eisenhauer - a native Texan - LBJ, Lady Bird Johnson, and Stephen F. Austin. She said she also had a handful of other amendments for William Travis, Barbara Jordan, and others, but she ended up not filing those amendments - it was late and they had just debated telecom just an hour or so before. Rep. Garnet Coleman (D-Houston) had to re-assure everyone a few times that his amendment to name it for George H.W. Bush wasn't a joke. In the end, the amendment was killed, and the bill was approved.

Here's a thought: leave it to a city referendum. I think that given the area, it could get approved, but then again citizens in that area might not like a partisan lawmaker from California. But's not something that should be decided by lawmakers 150 miles away. I understand how transportation matters like that get approved, but the method just ain't right.

Maybe that method could change for when HB 55 by Rep. Kent Grusendorf comes up for floor debate next week, which would re-name the part of I-20 located in Dallas and Tarrant Counties as the Ronald Reagan Memorial Highway, or if HB 110, which would re-name in the inner circle drive around the Capitol - the part of Congress between 11^th and 15^th streets - as the Ronald Reagan Circle, goes anywhere.

Telecom bill approved, needs one more vote to move to Senate

2005-03-24T14:56:00.000-06:00

The telecom bill got approved on the second reading 145-to-1, with Harold Dutton casting the sole dissenting vote. Sigh. Well Rep. Robert Puente (D-San Antonio -- home of SBC) authored an amendment, which was amended by Rep. Vilma Luna (D-Corpus Christi), that had to do with the wireless internet services that municipalities offer to the public. In a nutshell, municipalities that currently charge for WiFi would have to charge for it in the future and municipalities that currently offer WiFi for free could not charge for it in the future, but municipalities can't change whether or not they charge. And regardless of whether or not they charge, they cannot expand the coverage since they don't want cities competing against companies. Check out the the post by Adina and SaveMuniWireless.org for more info.

Before Luna offered this amendment, it was very entertaining to watch the exchange between Puente and Hochberg, but it paled in comparison to the exchange between Puente and Turner. Turner can be fierce and a good legislator - when he applies himself. Basically Turner and Hochberg (both from Houston) had really good arguments, but alas Puente's special interests - spelled by the letter s, b, and c - won out.

Today's Austin American-Statesman has a pretty good synopsis of the other key amendments:

A proposal requiring the PUC to study the Universal Service Fund, which provides millions of dollars a year in subsidies, chiefly to SBC and Verizon, to ensure phone service in rural areas. Legislators say they want to know whether the money is being spent as intended or whether the fund should be eliminated.

A proposal clarifying the PUC's role in handling complaints about "cramming and slamming," in which companies sign up or bill customers for service for which they didn't ask. King's bill had removed that consumer protection role from the PUC.

A proposal that would require Internet phone companies to inform customers whether the service includes 911 emergency service. On Tuesday, the state sued Vonage Holdings Corp. over the issue.

The article goes on to say that the bill may have trouble in the Senate, where Sen. Troy Fraser may oppose it.

Fraser had submitted a rival bill that authorized the PUC to decide whether there was sufficient competition in a particular area of the state to merit deregulating rates. He's pulled that bill down for now.

"It is becoming increasingly obvious to me that the incumbent telephone companies are not interested in competition and are only interested in raising revenue by increasing rates on the consumer and maintaining subsidies at their current levels," Fraser said.

Well let's just put this behind us so we can enjoy Easter Sunday before gambling is tackled, which will probably be as soon as possible.

Telecom update

2005-03-23T00:22:00.000-06:00

Well after thoroughly studying the massive telecommunications bill, HB 789, I have some good news. No, not for you SBC. When a bill gets voted out of committee, the text of the version voted out, along with an analysis of that version, must be published - seen here. However, the analysis must accurately portray what's in the bill - otherwise it can be killed on points of order. Needless to say the analysis is wrong. I don't know if they analyzed one of the many committee substitutes that were presented to the committee, but the clerk's an idiot and royally screwed up on this one.

Since I don't like this bill, and it has many points of order on which to kill the bill, I might just do that. Well, not me personally, but I want to get the ball rolling on it. I would think that a bill like this wouldn't even get out of committee, but since SBC supports it - which means that CWA blindly supports it simply because SBC is unionized, regardless of the bill's impacts on, say, every person who owns a home phone - that means the bill will usually go through. The Republicans don't have enough guts to stand up to SBC, and the Democrats don't have a spine - read: they won't stand up to labor on this, even though this has nothing to do with labor but with consumer protection. Sheesh. So that's why I want to act on this one.

Anyways, now the fun part. The bill does this:

Grants phone companies full deregulation on January 1, 2008. But they must first lower the rates for long distance intrastate (meaning within the state) phone calls to equal long distance interstate (meaning between the states) phone calls. Right now a phone call from one Texas city to another costs more than a phone call from one Texas city to another across the country, simply because intrastate rates are so high (this has a lot to do with the fees that Texas charges). So if companies make their rates for intrastate long distance phone calls equal to interstate rates by January 1, 2008, then they can charge whatever they want, without any caps on rates. Yeah I don't fully get the logic on that one either.

Many consumer protections such as those against "cramming" are eliminated. Cramming happens when a phone company tries to cram many services together into a small number of fees, but increasing the fees. This is usually done without the customer's knowledge or consent.

In perhaps the sneakiest maneuver, the bill replaces "customer household" with "customer" when dealing with lifeline services, which are assistance programs to lower income folks that usually cut their bill in half. To qualify for a lifeline program, you have to qualify for public assistance programs like Medicaid, Food Stamps, etc.

But the change doesn't seem like a big deal, right? Well, it is since it makes the customer have to be the recipient him- or herself of public assistance programs. But parents whose children are on Medicaid usually don't get Medicaid themselves; it's just their kids who get it. Same goes for Food Stamps. So, under HB 789, since the name of customer on a phone bill doesn't match up with the recipient of public assistance program, the household won't qualify for lifeline programs. Sneaky, sneaky.

This version does not ban municipal wireless. However, Phil King is interested in introducing an amendment tomorrow morning to do so. Apparently he was just hoping to avoid public debate over it.

Currently, dominant carriers are required to give discounts to libraries, educational institutions, and other providers of distance learning. This bill will discontinue that.

The bill does a lot of other things, such as no longer capping hotel and motel calls at 50 cents a piece and "bundling" now-basic services like call waiting, but it's massive. If you want the full low-down, then please e-mail me.

HB 789 to be heard Wednesday

2005-03-21T18:31:00.000-06:00

Included amoung the ridiculous amount of bills to be heard Wednesday is HB 789. The Calendars Committee met at 6 tonight (around 30 minutes ago), and they placed it on the calendar for two days from now.

I'll get my synopsis up here soon, promise.

Dewhurst blurring lines of government and business

2005-03-18T15:01:00.000-06:00

Ordinarily I don't post something that falls outside the lines of policy, but PinkDome.com's account of government-sponsored propaganda is too good to pass up.

PinkDome is alleging that Lt. Governor David Dewhurst is using government resources to provide web space for the website Texas Children First - a (web)site for sore eyes. Read the post for more.

House votes out HB 86

2005-03-18T09:55:00.000-06:00

On February 4, 2004, the Houston Chronicle reported that 12 major petroleum and petrochemical companies accounted for 80 percent of all unpermitted pollution released into Houston’s air the previous year. These facilities released 5.5 million pounds of pollution during air emission events over the period of 11 months, and these unpermitted emissions not only endanger the health of nearby residents but can travel for hundreds of miles.

The Legislature acted on this: Wayne Smith (R-Baytown) authored HB 86. This bill relaxes restrictions on the compliance history - a company's record of environmental violations. Specifically,

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) would only have to develop standards for using compliance histories – rather than evaluating them – and the bill is a little fuzzy on how compliance histories would be developed.

TCEQ could no longer use compliance histories in determining whether to conduct announced inspections on a facility.

The classification of a "repeat violator" would be more narrowly defined from all violations that a company commits to simply the violations of "the same nature in the same environmental media." This means that TCEQ would look more narrowly at the same violation committed repeatedly instead of looking for a pattern of violations.

HB 86 grants TCEQ to allow "reg. flex." (regulatory flexibility) to a company as far as pollution controls go. Specifically, it deletes requirements that an alternative pollution control is only as protective of the environment and public health rather than more protective.

HB 86 is good in that gets rid of a complicated mathematical formula for determining compliance histories and that it allows penalities to be levied for a specific facility and not all facilities of a given company - if a company has facilities in Gavleston and Odessa, and the Odessa facility is the only one with environmental violations, then that one would be the one that TCEQ reprimands.

HB 86 was improved by around 100 votes, with around 45 dissenting votes.

Like I said yesterday,

2005-03-18T09:26:00.000-06:00

a lot of bills were pushed through the Calendars committee yesterday (much like the Local & Consent Calendars committee). The following actions were taken yesterday:

The following measures were placed on the General State Calendar for Monday, March 21, 2005: HB68, HB225, HB282, HB404, HB423, HB1077, and HB1286.

The following measures were placed on the General State Calendar for Tuesday, March 22, 2005: HB81, HB256, HB265, HB322, HB472, HB548, HB729, HB755, HB914, HB946, HB1285, and HB1478.

The following measures were placed on the Local, Consent, and Resolutions Calendar for Wednesday, March 23, 2005: HB18, HB67, HB74, HB102, HB178, HB204, HB230, HB263, HB297, HB350, HB479, HB532, HB564, HB593, HB595, HB596, HB597, HB638, HB705, HB723, HB735, HB736, HB737, HB738, HB739, HB740, HB741, HB742, HB743, HB744, HB747, HB760, HB794, HB885, HB901, HB932, HB935, HB957, HB1058, HB1139, HB1163, HB1310, and HB1394.

Notice that HB 789 isn't on there. However, Phil King, the bill's author, is interested in having it heard on Wednesday (well, allegedly - it's just what I heard). Hmm...I wonder if this has anything to do with the upcoming Easter holiday - many representatives are planning on going home for a long weekend, so the thought is that many bills will be shoved through since the rep's might not put up as much of a fight. Fantastic.

And watch for HB 7, the worker's comp bill, to be heard on the House floor next week too.

Well I'll post my thoughts on the telecom bill soon.

Telecom bill gets voted out of committee

2005-03-17T13:11:00.000-06:00

In a flurry of ad hoc committee hearings called on the House floor today, the telecommunications bill HB 789 was voted out of the Regulated Industries committee today. The Calendars committee, which coincidentally had a formal meeting at the same time, will determine sometime in the near future when that bill, along with many others voted out over the past fifteen minutes, hits the House floor. Updates to come.

HB 3 gets approved by House

2005-03-15T09:23:00.000-06:00

HB 3 was approved late last night, carrying many new taxes. Items not taxed include newspapers (a Charlie Geren amendment pulled that) and diapers, the latter of which was substituted by a tax on "elective plastic surgery" - meaning surgery stemming from a disease is exempt from the tax (a Scott Hochberg amendment).

But most of the other regressive taxes were kept. According to today's Fort Worth Star Telegram, the following taxes were approved by the House:

Sales taxes: Raise state rate to 7.25 percent from 6.25 percent [The highest in the nation once you account for the sales taxes added by local governments]. Begin levying the tax on billboard advertising, bottled water, car washes and car-repair services. Sales taxes on boats and cars would rise to 7.35 percent.
Snack tax: Put a 3 percent surcharge on chips, soft drinks, candy, doughnuts and other snack foods consumed off the premises of a restaurant. Combined with the sales tax, the tax rate for snack food would exceed 10 percent.
Vanity tax: Apply the sales tax to elective cosmetic surgery.
Business taxes: Close business loopholes by expanding the corporate franchise tax or a new payroll tax to all business entities, including partnerships.
Tobacco taxes: Increase cigarette tax by $1.01, raising it to $1.42 per pack. More than triple the cigar tax. Raise the smokeless-tobacco tax to 40 percent, up from 35.2 percent of list price.
School property taxes: Cut by one-third on average, or 50 cents per $100 valuation, and dedicate 15 percent of future surplus revenue (not constitutionally dedicated) to additional property tax relief.

Tuition Relief bills filed

2005-03-14T15:34:00.000-06:00

These will be discussed later this week, I think on Wednesday at the press conference on Higher Education.

Rep. Gallego (D-Alpine):

HB 2687 is similar to Rep. Garnet Coleman's HB 1019, only this has a shot of going somewhere. This will at least get a hearing by the House Higher Education Committee, but I'm pretty sure that Craddick will try hard to prevent it from passing on to the Senate. Actually, I'm not even sure if it will get to the House floor since Geanie Morrison, R-Victoria, is the also the chair of the Higher Ed. Committee and author of the tuition deregulation bill, HB 3015, from last session. I know that Craddick and Morrison worked closely to get HB 3015 passed two years ago.

Craddick was the one, after all, who revived tuition deregulation when it appeared dead in the water: when Lt. Gov. Dewhurst proposed pumping $500 million in new money into higher education, Craddick said he would allow it only if deregulation was put back into HB 3015. After a closed-door, 8 hour meeting (where they also discussed other things..), deregulation was back on the table and eventually passed.

But since the Senate controls the budget this session - each session, the House and the Senate alternate between controlling the budget - instead of the House, it might have to be a Senate bill that would put caps back on tuition...

HB 2688 is very similar to but not the exact same as SB 1400 (see below). It says that a university cannot charge a student more than a 3 percent increase in total tuition and compulsory fees than the previous year.

Sen. Ellis (D-Houston):

SB 1389 also takes into account total tuition and compulsory fees charged by an institution, as well as the family's income, in determining tuition caps.
SB 1398 relaxes the requirements on qualifying for a tuition equalization grant. Basically, SB 1398 says that a student can simply qualify for a TEXAS Grant to be eligible for a TEG. Also, there is no minimum requirement for the number of hours a student must take; the student must only be enrolled in a university.

When deregulation went through, 20 percent of all tuition collected was designated as financial aid for other, more needy students. SB 1399 clarifies the language for this financial aid to say that this tuition revenue is allocated to "need-based" financial aid. HB 3015 also said that if a university increases their tuition past $46 per semester credit hour, then 5 percent of that revenue would also be set aside for financial aid - but this 5 percent is considered part of the other 20 percent of all tuition and fees charged (that is, without regard to specific tuition rates). SB 1399 would tweak this to say that the 5 percent is in addition to the 20 percent.

SB 1400 is very similar to Gallego's 2688 (see above). SB 1400 would say that a
university can't charge a student more than a 5% increase from the
year before.

SB 1554 is a full rollback of tuition deregulation. It would negate the tuition increases from the past two academic years by requiring that tuition rates for the next academic school year, 2005-06, could not exceed a 5 percent increase from the 2002-03 school year. This bill doesn't have a snowball's chance in Texas of passing. Well, wait just a goshdarn second, it did snow this year! On Christmas Eve, after about 5 minutes of scraping snow off my windshield, I did make a single snowball to throw at my sister! Boy am I excited..

School bill not made in Texas

2005-03-14T14:46:00.000-06:00

In a disturbing trend, HB 2 was not drafted by Texas lawmakers but by a conservative think tank in California. From Saturday's San Antonio Express-News:

The road to passage began in December 2003, when Gov. Rick Perry; House Committee Chairman Kent Grusendorf, R-Arlington; and Senate Education Chairwoman Florence Shapiro, R-Plano, asked the Hoover Institution's Koret Task Force to examine Texas school funding and suggest ways to improve the effectiveness and delivery of education in public schools.

...

The result of the task force's work: "Recommendations from the Koret Task Force, February 2004," was published in book form last year. Its recommendations mirror the language in House Bill 2, including rolling back local property tax rates, establishing a system of financial accountability for districts, freeing exemplary schools from state regulation and phasing in computer-assisted testing for state-standardized tests.

The report also covers school board elections, incentive pay for teachers and how to budget for textbooks — all points covered in the bill.

...

"It's no surprise that conservative politicians will go to conservative think tanks, but there should be truth in advertising. We should know where this came from," he (SMU professor Cal Jenkins) said. "We're really getting a Hoover Institution piece of legislation pushed through the Texas Legislature."

...

Kathy Miller, president of Texas Freedom Network, an advocacy group that often challenges the GOP, said legislators should talk to constituents, not cut and paste recommendations from outside organizations.

Tax burden shifts: Biggest tax breaks would go to the largest political donors

2005-03-14T14:34:00.000-06:00

says the Houston Chronicle:

Time and again in the House's proposed tax bill, which will be debated Monday, the largest political donors are the businesses that receive the biggest tax breaks or have their taxes left untouched.

...

People and companies' political committees in the biggest losing industries -- construction, services and trade -- also made millions of dollars in political donations but rarely in the concentrated amounts of the potential winners. They will pay $1.4 billion in increased state taxes.

...

A legislative study of the tax bill found that people earning less than $100,000 a year would pay a combined $1.1 billion a year more in taxes while those earning higher wages would receive a $437 million annual tax cut.

...

Industry/Business
Increase/Decrease
Agriculture -$72.8 million
Mining, oil and gas -$169.1 million
Utilities and transportation -$222.2 million
Construction +$205.6 million
Manufacturing, petrochemical -$230.6 million
Trade +$102.8 million
Information -$91.4 million
Finance, insurance, real estate -$896.5 million
Services + $1.1 billion
Subtotal of all businesses -$235 million
Individuals/consumers
Increase/Decrease
Residential, single family -$2.6 billion
Sales and excise taxes +$3.1 billion
Subtotal on individuals +$449 million

Private security forces?

2005-03-11T11:01:00.000-06:00

HB 246

This bill, filed by Tony Goolsby, would employ peace officers to aid local law enforcement officers in patrolling neighborhoods. OK, sounds reasonable. These peace officers would have all of the same powers as cops as far as making arrests go, as well as other powers and authority (with the exception of writing traffic tickets). Um, okay, sure sounds fair.

These peace officers would be privately employed. Wait, private cops patrolling the streets who are able to make arrests? Uno segundo...which companies would be the employers? What oversight would these private cops have? What about their taser policy and use of force policy? Answers folks, we need answers.

A list of HB 3's taxes

2005-03-10T14:48:00.000-06:00

CSHB3 would cut local property taxes by raising other state taxes. CSHB3 is designed to be "revenue neutral" meaning that revenue raised by raising existing state taxes and creating new taxes is used only to offset local property tax cuts. The tax equity note on CSHB3 concludes that 80% of Texas families will see an increase in taxes as a result of passage of HB3. Only 20% of Texas families, those with annual incomes over $100,000, would actually benefit from the bill.

New Taxes:

-essentially created a state income tax by requiring businesses to pay a 1.15% tax on each employee's wages. The tax base is capped at $90,000 per employee per year.

Applies the sales tax to:
-billboard advertising services, previously untaxed;
-all car wash and detail services, previously untaxed;
-car repairs, previously untaxed;
-all bottled water, previously untaxed;
-newspapers, previously untaxed;
-snacks (previously untaxed) including cookies, crackers, candy bars, popcorn, and soft drinks; would be an additional 3% to the proposed sales tax, for a total of 10.25%.

Increases current taxes:

-increases state sales tax to 7.25%, one of the highest in the nation;
-vehicle sales tax to 7.35%;
-tax rate on vehicle rentals over 30 days to 7.35%;
-sales tax on boats and motors to 7.35%;
-cigarettes by $1.00, from 41 cents to $1.41;
-tax on all cigars and other tobacco products, such as chew;
-an additional fee of $0.02 per cigarette from small independent tobacco manufacturers.

CSHB3 requires the Comptroller to distribute 15% of any increase in available state revenue, plus the amount distributed in the previous session, to the school districts to ensure future property rate reductions.

CSHB3 requires that a purchaser or grantee of property subject to taxation (e.g., a home or commercial property) must file a Sales Price Disclosure Report with the chief appraiser to allow the chief appraiser to determine true property values. A Disclosure Report would not be required for non-market sales and the bill would prohibit the disclosure of confidential information contained in the report.

CSHB3 would allow communication companies to add a monthly pass-through charge to customers bills to recoup the amount they are charged to increase the TIF. CSHB3 would lift the limit on the amount of money that can be assessed on telecommunication utilities. CSHB3 would require that all assessments be deposited in the general revenue fund. The fund was created to advance technology in schools, hospitals, libraries and other public institutions. Last session the TIF was changed to fund the Technology Allotment that is used by schools to purchase electronic text and instructional materials.

State tuition caps may be re-instituted

2005-03-10T11:19:00.000-06:00

According to today's Fort Worth Star-Telegram, the Senate Finance Committee is trying to find a way to cap public university tuition rates once again. A proposal that would be tied in with the Senate Appropriations bill, SB 1, by Sen. Tommy Williams (R-The Woodlands) would place a voluntary cap at $144 per semester credit hour. Universities may exceed this cap, but they would start to lose state funding if they did so.

University of Texas System Chancellor Mark Yudof sees this proposal as an attack upon UT-Austin, where tuition for the current academic year is floating around that proposed cap. He believes, though, that if this proposal is implemented, then universities would revert to their old ways of gaining revenue in the pre-tuition deregulation fashion: to raise fees while tuiton remains stagnant. Yudof has a point here since this tuition proposal is relatively weak.

However, by tomorrow's bill filing deadline, Sen. Rodney Ellis (D-Houston) is expected to file bill for the full rollback of tuition deregulation. He was considering a number of proposals, and he has allegedly selected the one containing the "harshest language" for tuition caps. Pete Gallego (D-Alpine) is also expected to file a tuition re-regulation bill, though it's currently unknown as to whether it will only be caps or a full rollback.

HB 2 gets passed out of the House

2005-03-10T11:13:00.000-06:00

By a vote of 76-71, Republicans passed HB 2 out of the House last night. I was under the impression that there would be at least a handful of rural Republicans would leave for the vote, but I was proven wrong. But I was right that Grusendorf had the votes - apparently, Democrats like Edwards and Dutton were asked to vote for the bill if need be (if everyone who agreed to vote for HB 2 would have, then the measure would have passed by 79 or 80 votes), but their votes weren't needed. Edwards was one of two representatives who were present but not voting.

LBB says HB 3 raises taxes on most Texans

2005-03-08T16:26:00.000-06:00

From The Quorum Report

$100,600+ Incomes only group to see net tax decrease, poorest see biggest increase

(to understand why, see the regressive taxes included in the bill)

A new analysis [PDF] of the Committee Substitute to House Bill 3 by the Legislative Budget Board shows that low income Texans will see a bigger percentage increase in their taxes than those on higher incomes.

The LBB says that for fiscal year 2007 families earning between $13,415 and $22,833, the percentage increase in taxes will be 5.16 percent. For families earning between $31,735 and $41,463, the percentage increase in taxes will be 4.95 percent.

For families earning between $64,325 and $79,271, the percentage increase in taxes will be 2.66 percent. For families earning between $79,271 and $100,593, the percentage increase in taxes will be 1.65 percent.

Families earning between $100,593 and $140,853 would see a net tax decrease of 0.43 percent. Families earning over $140,853 would see a net tax decrease of 2.88 percent.

The figures are included in a Tax/Fee Equity Note released today by the LBB. The reports final tax incidence shows that for the lowest income level (0 to low $10,000 income range), there is a $111.9 million increase, or 5.6 percent, in fiscal year in 2007.

For the middle income level (low $40,000s to low $50,000 income range), there is a $175.4 million increase, or 4.3 percent, in fiscal year in 2007. For the highest income level (low $140,000 and above), there is a $400.5 million decrease, or 2.9 percent, in fiscal year in 2007.

In other words, the property tax reduction envisioned in HB2 will cost most Texans more taxes than it saves them.

(c) Copyright March 8, 2005 by Harvey Kronberg, www.quorumreport.com, All rights are reserved

Grusendorf claims he has the votes

2005-03-08T11:18:00.000-06:00

Yep, Grusendorf says that he enough votes to get HB 2 out of the House. He compromised with rural Republicans who are still apprehensive to the school bill. He got them to agree to vote for it by allocating more money to transportation costs since some routes in West Texas are as long as 90 miles. However, the word on the street is that Grusendorf will want the final vote to only be a majority of the quorum present, not the majority of the house since many rural Republicans are considering walking out when it comes time to vote - thus abstaining from voting. The next few days are sure to be interesting..

The tax bill, HB 3, gets voted to the House floor

2005-03-08T11:14:00.000-06:00

Last night in the Ways & Means committee, members considered a payroll tax increase, a snacks tax (read: obesity tax, the first of its kind in the entire country), sales tax increase, motor vehicle sales tax increase, and cigarette tax. All of which were approved when HB 3 was passed out of committee last night, with one approving vote coming from Democrat Mike Villarreal, Vice Chairman of the committee. The final vote was 6-2.

The payroll tax would increase from 1.1 percent to 1.15 percent (well, except for insurance companies).

The snack tax would be a 3 percent addition to the sales tax on all snacks, which include cookies, candy, chips and soft drinks not consumed in restaurants.

The sales tax increase from 6.25 percent to 7.25 percent, instead of the original proposal of 7.2 percent.

The motor vehicle sales tax increase from 6.25% to 7.35%.

The gasoline tax increase of 20 cents.

The cigarette tax increase by $1. A PR guy for Phillip Morris said it best in the Houston Chronicle today:

If the Texas Legislature approves a proposed $1-per-pack increase in the state excise tax on cigarettes, the average price of a carton of cigarettes would increase to $48.74. This would make the average cost of a carton of cigarettes in Texas $8 to $13 higher than bordering states. In addition, the price of a carton of cigarettes would be $35 higher than could be purchased in Mexico.

At the end of HB 2, there's one little stipulation: that it won't pass unless HB 3 is passed. This doesn't make sense since HB 3 is being dubbed "revenue-neutral;" Tom Craddick says it the best: "We're not going to do a tax bill to fund schools," Dallas Morning News. Wait, what? So these tax increases aren't going to provide money to schools - they're only supposed to offset property tax reductions?

To save myself from a lengthy post, just read Carlos Guerra's commentary in the San Antonio Express-News today since I agree with most of what he says.

Ban may no longer ban WiFi

2005-03-07T11:29:00.000-06:00

Last week, the Houston Chronicle reported that HB 789, the telecommunications deregulation bill filed by Phil King (R-Weatherford), would ban cities from providing free wireless access. The logic behind this provision was to allow greater competition to phone and internet companies, and having municipal governments providing this service free of charge would go against the ideals of the free market.

But as the article explained, many lower income residents of the city have benefited from free wireless:

Melissa Noriega, the acting state representative for the area covered by Technology for All, called the effort to ban municipal participation in wireless Internet efforts "short-sighted," and said she will work to prevent it from becoming law.

Noriega said families that cannot speak fluent English can be transformed by learning to use a computer and crossing the digital divide — they learn how to spell-check, can find translation services online, e-mail family in their home countries, and much more.

"This may be the single biggest step we can take to close the gap between the haves and have-nots," she said.

The City of Austin recently spent millions of dollars installing new wireless across the cities. Many businesses can now provide the service without charge to customer, as evidenced by the signs around town promoting the WiFi.

At recent meetings of the Regulated Industries committee - who's hearing the bill - many citizens (not companies...) have expressed concern over this provision. King has allegedly re-thought this provision and may introduce either a committee substitute or an amendment to allow cities to provide free WiFi at tomorrow's Regulated Industries committee meeting. But we'll just have to wait to see.

Bills on state investments

2005-03-07T11:07:00.000-06:00

In the spirit of openness and transparency, Rep. Dan Gattis (R-Georgetown) filed HB 223 to increase public awareness of state investments. "It is the policy of this state that investments of the government are investments of and for the people and the people are entitled to information regarding those investments. The provisions of this section shall be liberally construed to implement this policy."

Transparency in state decisions is paramount to a democracy, and letting sunlight into state investments is a key step in this. U.S. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) introduced the OPEN Government Act using these same principles.

HB 815 was introduced by Rep. Lon Burnam (D-Fort Worth) to ban state investments in Sudan in light of the military actions in that country, which many are calling genocide. HB 817 was introduced by Yvonne Davis (D-Dallas) a while back on behalf of the AFL-CIO to prevent any state promotion of job outsourcing through investments.

HB2 comes out with Committee Substitute, Dems to unveil counter-proposal

2005-03-01T13:10:00.000-06:00

As expected, the committee substitute on HB 2 came out last night. It's more verbose than the introduced version, but nothing substantial has changed.

Granted this committee substitute is still massive and I can't cover all the areas here, but these are same areas that you might not hear about in the news:

Retains Robin Hood for districts that raise more than the cost of their Tier one allotment. The district also has the option to consolidate with a poorer district.

Provides that students must pass end-of-course exams to move to the next grade or to graduate.

Provides that if local districts pay teachers above the state minimum, then that pay should be based on the teacher's ability to improve student performance.

Establishes new sanctions for public schools that are in the lowest ten percent in performance.

For the bottom five percent the commissioner shall assign a team to assist the campus to improve. The second year the commissioner shall establish an alternative management system for that campus. The commissioner may do these things for campuses rated in the bottom 6-10%.

Deletes the escalator clause that automatically increased the state minimum salary schedule for school employees (teachers, other auxiliary workers like bus drivers and janitors).

Deletes the requirement that all school employees get $1000 to help fund health insurance. Only teachers get the $1000 in this bill. It takes money away from the educational support staff that need it the most.

Allows districts or campuses that are rated exemplary to be exempt from almost all the state standards that helped them achieve that status, including class size limits, contracts, minimum salaries, teacher certification requirements, etc.

So the Dem's are holding their press conference tomorrow. You'll hear all their counter-proposals then, including:

Tripling the exemption for the homestead tax from $15,000 to $45,000, providing a broader tax relief than the statewide property tax currently touted by the GOP.

Buying down the property tax from $1.50 to $1.25. They will attack the fact that the GOP plan for lowering the property tax to $1.00 since it mainly benefits homes that cost more than $250,000.

All in all, this Democratic plan will cost roughly $6.64 billion. Since the GOP set the spending bar at $11.789 billion, then that provides over $5 billion in new money to schools, which is greater than the $1.5 billion actually provided by the Republican plan (or even the $3 billion that the GOP plan wants). Most of the Dem's proposed spending would go to across-the-board teacher raises and once again providing health insurance to all other school employees.

That's the economic side of the Democratic counter-proposal, and I'm pretty sure almost every other proposal will be opposed, such as the proposed end-of-year exams, setting the start date after Labor Day, and tying student performance to how teachers and schools are handled by the state.

Texas at the top of its own game

2005-03-01T13:08:00.000-06:00

According to an article today El Paso Times, Texas ranks first in the nation for child population growth, uninsured children, the amount of toxins emitted by manufacturers, clean water permit violations, executions, and job discrimination lawsuits (also from today). It ranks dead last in high school graduation rates, the percentage of the population with health insurance, and the average consumer credit score.

The article quotes Sen. Eliot Shapleigh (D-El Paso) blaming the heavily regressive tax system currently in place. One thing I didn't know until recently was that Texans approved a consitutional amendment pushed by then-Lt. Bob Bullock in 1993 to approve a personal income tax. Article 8, Section 24 of the Texas Constitution allows for the state to implement an income tax that is determined by the voters, who would have to vote for each increase. However, legislation containing a personal income tax would have to be passed the Legislature.

I found that fact out from reading a recent 2005 policy brief by Dick Lavine of the Center for Public Policy Priorities [PDF] arguing for a small income tax. Why? Because according to that article, Texas is 49th in tax revenue collected, despite its enormous population.

Opposition to stem cell research gettin' a lil outta control

2005-02-28T17:11:00.000-06:00

Well that's according to a recent Rio Grande Valley Politics post. New legislation would guard against human cloning - OK, I've heard the arguments for that. But HB 864 would also make it a felony to conduct any form of stem cell research - including studying a patient's own DNA in a petri dish - and to ban the transportation of stem cells to or from Texas. This is especially freaky since:

If a cure for diabetes was found in California as of the result of stem cell research, any Valleyite going to California specifically to be cured of diabetes would be GUILTY of a felony upon returning home to Texas. Even if the same Valleyite transported their own DNA to culture stem cells in a Petri dish would be GUILTY of a felony and subject to civil penalties not less than $500,000 for seeking treatment for their incurable disease.

Dems to unveil their education proposal Wednesday

2005-02-25T16:23:00.000-06:00

The word on the street is that the Republicans' committee substitute for HB 2 will come out Monday night. The Democrats will wait 24 hours "to let the media digest it" then unveil their plan, which will include broader tax relief and more money for schools. No one expects that the Democratic plan will pass, it's just something that Democrats will use to attack HB 2, which Dem's say is more about property tax relief than improving schools.

I wish I could divulge details on the Dem. plan now, but, godforbid Republicans read this blog, I don't want to give Republicans the weekend to consider the Democratic proposal. It's a good one that Republicans could potentially steal from and call it their own - and I support it - but I'll wait until the morning after the Republicans discuss the committee substitute.

More on the more tax revenue

2005-02-25T09:44:00.000-06:00

As I alluded to on Wednesday, Republicans are looking for ways to increase tax revenue without new taxes. Columnist Ken Rodriguez with the San Antonio Express-News had a really good column today further explaining this conundrum: there will be no new taxes, but there will be new user fees at places like strip clubs and tattoo and body-piercing parlors. Instead of the dreaded $1 cigarette tax, there will be a $1 cigarette user fee.

My favorite is the "Realtor Transaction Fee." It's supposed to offset reduced property taxes. Rodriguez puts it nicely:

I'm not exactly sure what a Realtor Transaction Fee is, but if it means paying an extra two grand when I buy a house so I can get a $200 reduction on my property taxes, I'm all for it.

Yes sir, if Gov. Rick Perry wants my vote in 2006, he can raise fees all he wants, as long as he doesn't raise taxes.

What in the tarnation is going on here?

A look into the gambling squabble

2005-02-24T16:16:00.000-06:00

Is Democrat Sylvester Turner simply covering for conservatives who are scared of their constituents? Is gambling a sound fiscal policy for the state? Would the state be preying on the weak? All of these questions have been posed over the past few weeks and there's more to come as this session heats up.

Freshman Rep. Mark Strama (D-Austin) said it best: "This item is the one on which we [Dem's] have the most leverage because a lot of Republicans want this bill – but they don't want to have to vote for it." To clarify, this is the only issue that Democrats have leverage on this session. Maybe tuition re-regulation, if they're lucky.

To start, it's always interesting to see when Republicans don't blindly support job creation and more streams of revenue -- which is of course the main reasons why some legislators are touting expanded gambling across the state. There's mounting GOP opposition to slot machines and Vegas-style gambling in Texas, based solely on moral grounds. An intern for Charlie Howard (R-Sugar Land) wrote an op-ed for today's Daily Texan that read like an appeal to progressives to extend opposition across the aisle to combat the bi-partisan support behind this. Like I said - it's a squabble.

On Tuesday, church goers appealed to lawmakers to stop Turner's bill, HB 897, from going any further, reports the Brownsville Herald. They claimed that expanded gambling would "prey on the poorest, least educated and minority Texans." They, with other opponents of this measure, cited figures recently published by the Texas Lottery Commission that in 2003,

People earning <$20,000 a year spent $75.50 a month on lottery games;
Those who earned between $20,000-$30,000 yearly spent $106 per month;
Those who earned between $76,000-$100,000 a year spent <$29 a month on the lottery.

Then there's the correlation that slot machines (well in 21st Century terms, "Video Lottery Terminals" or "VLTs") are the "crack cocaine" of gambling since they're addictive and prey off the poor.

Not only are many conservatives against this bill, so are liberal Democrats. Garnet Coleman (D-Houston) is one of the staunchest opponents of expanded gambling. The Austin Chronicle reports that gambling opponents are "more motivated by the state's own statistics that show direct links between high lottery sales and low-income neighborhoods, yet another way of taxing the poor. [Former Lottery Commission consultant Jim] Kohler has compiled a 'Top 10' lottery sales list by House district, and No. 1 just happens to be Coleman's 147th."

However, gambling proponents look to the $1 billion a year supposedly dropped each year by Texans who gamble in New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Louisiana. The word on the street is that citizens of those states are actively lobbying the Texas Legislature to defeat this measure, citing the potential loss of funds since Texans would prefer to stay close to home to gamble.

And one final push is coming from Mike Toomey, Gov. Rick Perry's chief of staff until five months ago, "directing virtually every aspect of state government." (reports the DMN) He's now a highly paid lobbyist who's primarily fighting for expanded gambling in Texas. "This [legislation] gives them a billion dollars for schools and to lower property taxes," Toomey told a group of horse owners, breeders, and trainers a few months back, the AusChron reported.

It's true that gambling would make money that could go to education. In the first year, proponents claim, the state could gain $1.2 billion - with VLTs installed at race tracks and Indian reservations and the Astrodome being an around-the-clock gambling center. However, Howard's unpaid intern points out, "In 1986, the racing industry persuaded the Legislature to approve pari-mutuel betting on horse and dog races. Twenty years later, the promised contribution to the state budget has yet to appear."

State Rep. Mike Villarreal (D-San Antonio) says, Public education "really is the Number 1 priority in my district. How we come up with the money seems to be important, but less important." Those words ring true for top GOP leadership: although David Dewhurst will likely oppose this measure, neither Rick Perry nor Tom Craddick will oppose this measure. But will deciding on this type of funding for public education be a wedge issue in a session where everyone's pushing bi-partisanship to solve...public education?

Republicans: No New Taxes but more Tax Revenue!

2005-02-23T17:00:00.000-06:00

Two years ago, every single U.S. state underwent a budget deficit, whether large or small, and Texas was no exception. California's was $40 billion, so luckily Texas's was a mere $9.9 billion...

The slogan was "No New Taxes," and the Lege erased the budget deficit by hacking away at state services. Now it's a different tune. Sort of. Now it's trying increase current taxes (20 cent gasoline tax, $1 cigarette tax, etc.) but still no new taxes. The San Antonio Express-News has an article on how lawmakers expect to make it through the session:

Some lawmakers were skeptical that enough money can be found in savings and fees.

"It's very difficult," said Rep. Ruth Jones McClendon, D-San Antonio, an Appropriations member, noting lawmakers must look at the effect of cuts or spending shifts.

"We're going to have to do it by raising additional revenue," she concluded. "It goes back to, 'Which tax do you like best?'"

Among those proposals included in the article are:

levying a "nursing home quality assurance fee" of 6 percent of gross receipts, which would bring in $452.5 million;

increasing the number of prison inmates eligible for medically recommended intensive supervision, or parole of offenders who are no longer considered a threat, which would save $1.2 million;

eliminating a "teaching experience supplement" for higher education, which would save $70.5 million.

"I'm going to say that some of those [proposals] will be proposed to the full Legislature," [Appropriations Chair Jim] Pitts said. "All of them, or most of them, I wouldn't say that."

This ought to be fun.

Delisi wants reps to perform marriages

2005-02-22T11:33:00.001-06:00

OK, I don't understand this one. It's not a necessarily a good or bad bill, it's just plain silly. Dianne White Delisi wants state representatives to be granted the some power that "priests, ministers, rabbis" and others currently have: to be able to marry a couple. I simply don't understand why.

How about this: go to this website and get ordained. Save yourself the trouble of trying to pass a legislation that could leave people as dumbfounded as I am trying to understand why she'd file this legislation.

Well I at least enjoy these posts by the PinkDome.com:

http://www.pinkdome.com/archives/2005/02/index.html#a000074

http://www.pinkdome.com/archives/2005/02/index.html#a000072

Going Nuclear in West Texas

2005-02-22T11:09:00.000-06:00

by Forrest Wilder, Austin-based freelance writer

Waste Control Specialists successfully fought two years ago for a federal radioactive waste dump site in Andrews County. They're now facing a stiff fight from Sen. Robert Duncan (R-Lubbock), whose district borders Andrews County, despite the millions of dollars in campaign contributions to various Republican and Democratic legislators - a small price to pay for the projected $100 billion in profits - that it took to pass the legislation last biennium.

The state may look to impose a 5 percent fee to allocate more money for education, but once that happens, the dump site will never go away, explains Colin Leyden, legislative director for Rep. Lon Burnam (D-Fort Worth). That move would bring with it long-term health consequences for the region that thought it was getting a quick-fix to their financial problems.

Board wants control over textbooks

2005-02-18T15:20:00.000-06:00

The State Board of Education was once able to directly control the language and content of textbooks, but then-Attorney General Dan Morales cut that power in 1996 saying that the SBOE had no right to regulate school textbooks. But The Quorum Report claims that SBOE member Terri Leo got Rep. Charlie Howard (R-Sugar Land) to file HB 220, which is trying to be passed off as one that simply fact-checks textbooks. HB 220 calls into question what the state of addressing ideas like creationism and sex education will be.

In the past year, creationism and sex ed. have made headlines since some parents would like creationism to be taught simultaneously with Darwin's theory of evolution, and they want abstinence-only textbooks. If I remember correctly, last summer parents wanted textbooks that said that if you get AIDS from having sex, just wait it out; it'll go away. Hmmm...the SBOE has already authorized the purchase of new health textbooks that exclusively promote abstinence (according to Planned Parenthood), so I don't know if kids ought to be taught that diseases that have caused pandemics just "go away," as well as anything else that the SBOE may authorize.

Dems react to HB 2, fight over funding numbers

2005-02-18T14:06:00.000-06:00

Yesterday morning, members of the House's Mexican American Legislative caucus (MALC) held a press conference to bash HB 2, the controversial public education bill filed by Ken Grusendorf (read more on HB 2).

First, they discussed the amount of money going to schools under the proposed funding model. Grusendorf has argued that $3 billion in new money will be placed in schools, and this new money would compensate for drastic cuts to Robin Hood. However, members of MALC pointed to the fiscal note written by the Legislative Budget Board on HB 2 that said state money going to HB 2 would total $12.4 billion for the 2006-2007 biennium; however, "Of that total, nearly $11 billion is the direct result of lowering to $1.00 the local property tax. The remaining $1.5 billion is net new revenue to school districts."

Hey Kent, $1.5 billion ≠ $3 billion.

Second, MALC addressed the equity gap since HB 2 calls for cutting Robin Hood by nearly 90 percent. The Quorum Report reported that "he said that 'without a doubt' HB 2 represents the most equitable system that has been seriously considered by the state." However, Pat Haggerty (R-El Paso) and MALC member also spoke at the press conference addressed the 2003 funding cuts and claimed that considering those cuts, "public education gets $398 million less" from HB 2.

Haggerty pointed to a $700 million cut in Active School Employee Health Care, a $123 million undercount in weighted ADA, a $5 million cut in Advanced Placement programs, and a $25 billion cut in Basic Skills programs.

"All these things were cut last session," Haggerty said. "They are now saying they are going to put new money in to help students. Actually, all they are putting back in is what they took out last time."

The Austin American-Statesman reports that HB 2 would also impose a cap 35 percent on the amount of money wealthy districts send to the state government for redistribution; rich districts like Highland Park in Dallas would see a 52 percent increase of funding - since it currently sends 70 percent, or double the cap, to the state for redistribution.

The article also draws attention to many districts that have a small number of students but have big property values stemming from "oil fields, power plants or other features that drive up values" that are located in those districts. How much money would these areas save from HB 2?

APD on the UT campus?

2005-02-17T17:56:00.000-06:00

Terry Keel (R-Austin) authored HB 479, which would grant local law enforcement agencies, including the Austin Police Department, the the same jurisdiction, powers, privileges, and immunities as the University of Texas at Austin Police Department. They would have jurisdiction over "all or part of the university campus" and would retain "the autonomous authority to deploy agency personnel on university property and in university facilities." So they can drive around campus with shotguns and AR-15s in the trunk of their squad car and beat anti-war activists, also.

EDIT: From today's (Feb. 18) Austin American Statesman:

Keel wrote the bill in response to a policy established in August by former UT Police Chief Jeffrey Van Slyke that prohibited Austin police officers from attending UT events without prior approval from university police. The policy, which also required off-duty city police officers to surrender their weapons while on campus, was abandoned in November.

P.S. The House Higher Education Committee is having a public hearing the bill on Monday, February 21 in E2.036.

Industry/Business	Increase/Decrease
Agriculture	-$72.8 million
Mining, oil and gas	-$169.1 million
Utilities and transportation	-$222.2 million
Construction	+$205.6 million
Manufacturing, petrochemical	-$230.6 million
Trade	+$102.8 million
Information	-$91.4 million
Finance, insurance, real estate	-$896.5 million
Services	+ $1.1 billion
Subtotal of all businesses	-$235 million
Individuals/consumers	Increase/Decrease
Residential, single family	-$2.6 billion
Sales and excise taxes	+$3.1 billion
Subtotal on individuals	+$449 million