April 27, 2006
Coleman on HB5

One of the five bills relating to the tax overhaul failed to make it through the House on Monday. That was HB5, which was responsible for raising the cigarette tax. All I knew was that it had been killed by a point of order by Rep. Garnet Coleman. As the issue that initial sent HB5 back to committee was fixed, and the bill was approved by the House today, I asked Rep. Coleman to give me a statement about it. Here's what his chief of staff sent me:


The tobacco tax bill, HB5, passed out of the House today. It was pulled down on a point of order by Rep. Coleman on Monday because the committee substitute contained provisions relating to bonding and a fee to pay for debt service that were not germane to the original bill. Those provisions were subsequently removed from the bill. There was another valid point of order on the bill today, but the House voted to suspend the procedural rule that was violated so the point was never raised.

The bill passed out of the House raises the cigarette tax by a dollar immediately upon effect. An amendment by Rep. Warren Chisum to raise the tax by 65 cents instead of $1 was soundly defeated both by members voting to maximize the shock value of moving immediately to $1 for public health reasons and by members who wanted to maximize the revenue generated by the tax increase because it is all dedicated to buying down property taxes.

Rep. Coleman had an amendment to the bill that would have instead dedicated the revenue to the general fund for the purpose of improving public health. That amendment, and numerous other Democratic amendments that would have dedicated the funds to state needs like a teacher pay raise, tobacco cessation programs, etc., were ruled non-germane to the bill and were not permitted to be offered.

Rep. Coleman voted against the bill because, as with all of these Republican tax bills, HB5 would increase taxes without providing one new dime for public education or any other priority of his constituents. Any revenue generated from an increase in the cigarette tax in particular should be dedicated to dealing with the public health effects of smoking as is done in so many other states.


At this point, barring an addition to the session's call, I believe the House is more or less finished with its work until the Senate does its thing, at which point a joint committee will be named to hammer out the differences. The fun resumes tomorrow, so stay tuned.

Another day, another roundup on HB3

While we wait for the Senate Finance Committee to start work tomorrow, here's a roundup of what's being said about the current state of things.

Chron: Perry sure, Dewhurst not so much


Gov. Rick Perry said Wednesday he is confident the Legislature will reduce local school operating taxes by about one-third, despite Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst's reservations about digging too deeply into the state budgetary surplus to help pay for the cuts.

"I'm very comfortable that the Senate and the House will get to that appropriate level," Perry said, challenging the Senate to approve a new, expanded business tax and related legislation approved by the House.

"I'm quite comfortable that these projections (for continued revenue growth) will hold up," he added.

[...]

Most of the lost revenue would be covered by the new business tax, which the House approved on Monday, and a $1-per-pack increase in the cigarette tax, which the House will debate today. The governor also would use as much as $2 billion of an $8.2 billion budgetary surplus to meet his property tax-cut goal.

But Dewhurst said much of the surplus is needed for other things, including hurricane relief, health care, a teacher pay raise of at least $2,000 a year and other school improvements. He said Perry's tax proposal would raise about $4.3 billion a year, enough to cut school property taxes by only 33 cents to 35 cents per $100 valuation, not the 50 cents the governor is seeking.

He said the Senate will have to decide whether to cut school taxes less, take longer to phase in the tax reductions or raise additional revenue.


Looks like another chance for Dewhurst to go toe-to-toe with House Speaker Tom Craddick. We've all seen that movie before. Remember, kids: the reason one bangs one's head against a wall is because it feels so good when you finally stop.

Statesman: Larry the Cable Guy and a bunch of bidness interest lobbyists. If that's not Rick Perry in a nutshell, I don't know what is. One side point to highlight:


Sen. Florence Shapiro, R-Plano, poised to insert a teacher pay raise into the House-approved package, said lawmakers could finish work well before the special session's 30 days expire May 16.

The Texas Supreme Court has set a June 1 deadline for fixing a school finance system overly dependent on property taxes that districts have little discretion in setting.

"It's a lovefest," said Shapiro, crediting widespread business support for the tax plan and close communication between senators and House members as well as Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, who presides over the Senate, and House Speaker Tom Craddick, R-Midland. "I hope what it is is good public policy."


Hey, maybe this time really will be different than every single other time. All I know is, it's always Dewhurst or a Senate proxy for him that gets quoted in this fashion whenever these stories are written. If Craddick gets asked, his spokeswoman replies with a non sequitur. There's a reason I remain skeptical.

Express News: Risks and rewards for Perry


Houston radio show host Dan Patrick, a GOP state Senate nominee, said he tried to persuade Perry to abandon the plan.

"I shared with him I understood the dilemma he was in - that no matter what decision he made, his opponents would find a reason to criticize him - but that if he used the surplus and increased taxes on business, not only would they criticize him, but he would risk losing his base," Patrick said.

"For him to win in November in a four-person race, he must keep the base," said Patrick, who still plans to support Perry in November.

[...]

GOP consultant Royal Masset said Perry's stand for the plan "helps him immensely. He's being kind of his own man.

"The only way Perry can lose is if nothing comes out of this special session," Masset said.

Political scientist Bruce Buchanan of the University of Texas at Austin said, "There will be some unhappy conservatives. But the fact that he could point to a resolution that he could justify in terms of tough choices and necessary compromise is likely to please more people than it irritates.

"A lot of people are going to conclude if this thing passes, Perry is going to be hard to stop," Buchanan said.

But [Texas Eagle Forum President Cathie] Adams said if the Legislature doesn't pass a plan that conservatives can embrace and that provides meaningful property-tax relief, she's worried about the effect on GOP turnout.

"I think conservatives would be frustrated. They're already frustrated with the president because of immigration and government growth. If we don't get a meaningful property-tax reduction, then in November ... what they'll do is not something crazy, like go and vote for the other party," she said. "I do see them sitting at home and folding their hands."


I think Masset and Buchanan are right. Perry may lose some conservative base support if his plan passes, but honestly, where are they going to go? Both Strayhorn and Bell want to spend more on education, and while Friedman has talked about "returning" the surplus, he's also on record supporting gay marriage (however jokingly). I can't see the Cathie Adamses of the world embracing him, given that.

Adams herself, of course, will stand by her man regardless. They make a mighty tasty pitcher of Kool Aid in the Eagle Forum, you know. In the end, that's what I expect to happen among most other base Republicans, so Perry ends up with a net gain. Like it or not, the TTRC plan is a tangible result that Perry can point to. The implementation is screwed up, thanks to HB2, but passing it means no more do-nothing special sessions. That's what Rick Perry needs more than anything.

Star Telegram: Not as much property tax reduction as you might have thought. Okay, there are still some risks for Perry, depending on what your expectations were and what your standards are.


[L]egislation now winding its way through the Texas Legislature would reduce property taxes for school operations by less than 12 percent - and local school districts could still push them back up again. It provides for further cuts in later years, but provides neither the mechanism to do so nor the money to pay for the promised decrease.

“I think it’s troubling,” said Peggy Venable, director of the Americans for Prosperity, which advocates for smaller government. “We want significant tax relief, and we want it to be meaningful and substantial. ... We’ve heard a lot of promises and we have a lot of numbers out there ... but if there are no real taxpayer protections, it’ll end up being a tax increase.”


By "taxpayer protections", I'm sure she means "appraisal caps", which have been a (failed) Perry agenda item for some time. I'll bet Perry starts talking them up again once the TTRC plan has been passed.

DMN: On to other items. This is about how Perry is now "open" to an increase in teacher pay (as if he wants the ParentPAC on his hindquarters this fall), but my favorite bit is at the end, on a different topic:


Meanwhile, some health care providers grumbled that the deal they struck with the governor to support the legislation turned out to be worth less once the House finished with the bill.

The House-passed bill lets physicians, hospitals and other caregivers deduct from their gross receipts the payments they receive from government health insurance programs for the poor. But it doesn't have as big a deduction as Mr. Perry promised.

Several health care lobbyists said the Texas Medical Association erred by negotiating with the governor, not legislative leaders.


All together now:

D-Day: Hey, quit your blubberin'. When I get through with this baby you won't even recognize it.
Otter: Flounder, you can't spend your whole life worrying about your mistakes! You f'ed up - you trusted us! Hey, make the best of it! Maybe we can help.
Flounder: [crying] That's easy for you to say! What am I going to tell Fred?
Otter: I'll tell you what. We'll tell Fred you were doing a great job taking care of his car, but you parked it out back last night and in the morning, it was gone. We report it to the police, D-Day takes care of the wreck, the insurance company buys your brother a new car.
Flounder: Will that work?
Otter: Hey, it's gotta work better than the truth.
Bluto: [thrusting six-pack into Flounder's hands] My advice to you is to start drinking heavily.
Otter: Better listen to him, Flounder, he's in pre-med.
D-Day: [firing up blow-torch] There you go now, just leave everything to me.

Let that be a lesson to you, TMA.

Finally, some feedback from a couple of candidates. First, from Dot Nelson-Turnier, as quoted by Stace:


I don’t think using a one time surplus for a tax cut is a good idea. It’s like quitting your job and using your savings to pay the rent. What do you do when your savings run out? It’s not a permanent solution. It’s just not fiscally sound.

There's more, I just clipped the end. Next is from Diane Trautman:

Yesterday, the House passed a series of legislative proposals known as House Bills 1, 2, 3 and 4. Here’s a rundown of what Members considered and how each bill turned out:
  • House Bill 1: Spends $2.4 billion of the $9.3 billion state surplus. Money is spent on lowering the statewide property tax rate to 88.7% of current local property tax rate -- local rates vary to school district to school district, but this cut is roughly 17 cents/$100 property valuation for most property tax payers.

  • House Bill 2: Created a Property Tax Relief Fund, to which all proceeds from the new business tax, used car sales tax and cigarette tax are dedicated permanently. Under HB 2, the state revenue from these new taxes can never be used to pay for a teacher pay raise, new textbooks, etc.

  • House Bill 3: Replaces the current state franchise tax system with a new “margins tax” on business’ gross receipts. The tax is 1% for most businesses and .5% for wholesalers and retailers. Businesses can deduct employee compensation such as salary, health care and retirement. The plan is full of loopholes – under the current system 1 of 16 businesses pay the franchise tax. Under the new system, this number rises to only 2 in 16. Oil companies, insurance companies and big businesses that own lots of property will now pay less than their fair share, while small and medium businesses will see their taxes increase dramatically. Further, HB 3, coupled with 1 and 2 is an $11.4 billion hot-check over 5 years. The new taxes in HB 3 will never be enough to make up for the taxes cut in HB 1. Additionally, with the passage of HB 2, the funds generated in HB 3 can never be used to pay for teacher pay, new textbooks, etc.

  • House Bill 4: A new tax on used car sales. Buyers must pay sales tax based on the at least 20% of the “blue-book” value of the car, and not the sale price.

  • House Bill 5: A new $1/pack tax on cigarettes. Consideration of this bill has been postponed due to a technical error in the bill. The bill does not include an immediate $1 tax. Instead the tax is phased-in: 50 cents, then 25, then 25 again. Studies have shown that this method does not actually reduce smoking. For this reason, most anti-smoking groups oppose the bill in its current form.


Next week it's the Senate's turn. Stay tuned.

Noriega on HB3

In addition to my conversation with Rep. Mike Villarreal, I also spoke to Rep. Rick Noriega about HB3 and the reasons why (unlike Rep. Villarreal) he opposed it. The highlights:

- While he believes it's not a bad idea to spread the tax burden more broadly, he believes the implementation as spelled out in HB3 is bad. Because the revenues generated by the TTRC plan cannot maintain the desired property tax cut, it makes for bad public policy.

- He reiterated what he'd said on Dan Patrick's radio show Tuesday (I was a first-time listener to Patrick's show because of his appearance, which I heard about just in time) that there's no good reason to vote for "the biggest tax hike in state history" when the budget is in surplus and none of the money raised by the new tax goes to the public schools.

- He thinks the Senate will choose to use HB1 as the basis for its legislation, not HB3. He also thinks that after they're done adding on to it all of the things that they're talking about, the final product may be too unpalatable for the House to pass. He believes an anti-tax backlash from conservative activists, including talk radio, will put a lot of pressure on the Senate, which from his perspective may wind up making their final effort worse.

- While some parts of HB3 may get rolled into the Senate version of HB1, he does not think Lt. Gov. Dewhurst wants to let John Sharp get the credit for what the Senate does pass. He cited Dewhurst's recent cutting remark about Sharp's prognostication skills as evidence for this, as well as Dewhurst's recently launched radio ad campaign, which touts lower property taxes, a teacher pay raise, plus some reform, all of which he's calling the Dewhurst plan.

- When I asked him what he thought the best case scenario was, he cited a minimalist approach: Do enough to meet the court's ruling, buy down property taxes, don't use too much of the surplus, and give the teachers a pay raise. He believes it's better not to get too bogged down in controversial agenda items at this point in an election cycle.

- "Getting money to the schools should be the top priority," he says.

- Finally, he says that the whole exercise in school finance has been a demonstration of why it's a lot easier to campaign than it is to govern. "When you're out of power, it's easy to go around saying two plus two equals five. Once you're in charge and you have the responsibility to make it all work, you start to realize that two plus two still equals four, no matter what you may have said before."

Villarreal on HB3

State Rep. Mike Villarreal is a member of the Ways and Means committee, and one of eight Democrats in the House to vote in favor of HB3 on Monday. (A full list of who voted for what can be found at the invaluable Capitol Annex.) I wanted to understand his reasons for supporting HB3, so I called him to talk about it. Here's an outline of what he told me:

- He believes that HB3, which implements the TTRC business tax plan, fundamentally "heals our broken tax system". He sees this as an asset that can be used going forward, that puts the state on a firmer financial foundation, and that as such this was something that has to be supported. Getting something like this in place was the key, because once it's there, it's generally there forever.

- While HB3 accomplishes some immediate goals for the Republican Party, he sees it as being a long-term benefit for the Democrats. "This allows a future Democratic legislative majority to have a better system to work with to implement its priorities," he told me. He stresses, though, that this is just the beginning of some much-needed reform.

- He believes that only a Republican-controlled Legislature could have gotten this bill across the finish line, because they were in a position to sell it to their constituencies that would normally oppose it (I dragged out the Nixon-goes-to-China cliche before he could bring it up). He noted the seeming absurdity of Republicans arguing in favor of an increased tax on businesses, while Democrats argued against it. Given this unusual dynamic, he believes it was best to take the long view.

- While he voted against HB2, which limited funds raised from HB3 to property tax cuts only, he believes that without it, there would not have been enough Republican support to pass HB3.

- When I asked about what vehicle there will be to fund schools in the future, he pointed out that all it will take to make any changes in what HB2 set up for the business tax is a simple majority in the Lege. This isn't a Constitutional amendment, and it isn't a lock box (though it's being spun as one by some Republicans). The next Lege will not be bound by this when it writes a budget if it chooses to use funds from the business tax for other purposes. He cited other funds, created by past legislatures for a specific purpose, that are now used for other things. Two examples he named were the Texas Infrastructure Fund, and a fund to help poor people keep their electricity running, both of which now go to general revenue.

- He disagrees with the argument that HB3 will be more burdensome to small businesses than large ones. He said the $400,000 exemption on a firm's revenues is sufficient to take care of smaller businesses.

- He points out that Scott McCown and Dick Lavine of the Center for Public Policy Priorities testified in committee in support of HB 3; also, the Texas Federation of Teachers has decided not to oppose HB 3. "These groups who are advocates for poor and working class Texans understand HB 3 represents good policy," he said.

- Finally, he sees what the Senate is doing with their modifications to HB1 - in particular, the teacher pay raise - as a start at making a meaningful investment in our children's education. He believes the Lege must also restore the cuts in education made during the 2003 legislative session and restore the health care stipend for school employees. He said that while state revenues rise and fall over time, they tend to fall back to a higher point than where they started (this was a point that John Sharp made during the TTRC process as well), and that with the new business tax in place, revenue growth will be more stable over time.

Henley campaign headquarters opening

Jim Henley, Democratic candidate for Congress in CD07, is having a grand opening of his campaign headquarters this weekend.


Volunteers and Supporters:

Please join us at the opening of the Henley for Congress Campaign Headquarters in Rice Village!

When: Sunday, April 30th, 2 - 5 p.m.

Where: 2482 Bolsover Street at the corner of Bolsover and Kelvin (just across from Walgreens).

Come and talk with fellow supporters, and find out how you can help our grassroots campaign!


One very positive aspect of the Henley campaign has been energizing the next generation of voters. If you want to see that in action, go visit the campaign on Sunday.

Bell asks Earle to investigate Perry

Chris Bell has asked Travis County DA Ronnie Earle to investigate "whether Texans for Taxpayer Relief’s radio ads constitute an in-kind officeholder contribution illegally paid for by corporate funds that Rick Perry and his representatives appear to have helped raise."


In a letter faxed to the Travis County District Attorney’s Office today, Bell also questioned whether the ads constituted an illegal corporate contribution because they appear coordinated with Rick Perry. The letter cited many apparent examples of coordination, including, but not limited to, an email sent out by a lobbyist claiming that Rick Perry invited lobbyists to hear a pitch by Texans for Taxpayer Relief, which was, according to the email, "formed at the request of the Governor."

This DMN story has some background on Texans for Taxpayer Relief. This would seem to be the key graf:

Texans for Taxpayer Relief is a dormant political committee out of San Antonio that was recently revived to rally support for the governor's plan. Various business groups, especially those who benefit under the tax swap or who dodged a significant tax increase, have donated $220,000 to the committee so far.

As always with groups like these, the key question is who donated and how much they gave.

A campaign organized to support Republican Gov. Rick Perry's school finance tax plan has voluntarily released the identities of its donors after coming under fire from Perry's political opponents.

Texans for Taxpayer Relief also is releasing the amounts of contributions received and deposited so far, though organizers say it isn't required under Texas law.

The organization made the announcements Tuesday as it launched two 60-second radio ads in Houston.

Democratic gubernatorial nominee Chris Bell and independent candidate Carole Keeton Strayhorn had criticized the school plan ad campaign, saying it was funded by secret donations that would benefit Perry in his re-election bid.

Candidates for state office are required to disclose direct donations to their campaigns in reports to the Texas Ethics Commission.

[...]

[Governor Perry's] spokeswoman, Kathy Walt, later said Perry was not involved in creating Texans for Taxpayer Relief and that he hasn't raised money for it.

Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle said when a complaint is filed by a political opponent his policy is to "monitor the situation" but not take any action until after the election, unless there are extraordinary circumstances.

To date, Texans for Taxpayer Relief said it has received $30,000 from the Texas Apartment Association and $30,000 from the Texas Beer Alliance. Other donors include the Texas Association of Builders, $25,000; Texas Credit Union League, $25,000; Maxxam, $50,000; Texas Motor Transportation Association, $50,000; and Texas Restaurant Association, $10,000.


At least now we know who's behind it, which frankly we should have from the beginning. Until someone gets nailed for disrespecting the disclosure laws, this is business as usual.

"This is why we need ethics reform now," said Bell. "Rick Perry is raising corporate money to sell a school finance plan that has no new money for schools."

You can add it to the list of reasons why we need ethics reform. The specifics are particular to this occurrance, but the underlying principle is the same. The Red State has more.

April 26, 2006
Progress on Net Neutrality

The Agonist has bad news and good news on the Net Neutrality front.


The Markey Amendment failed in committee 22-34. Democrats Rush, Green, Gonzalez, Towns, and Wynn all voted no on the amendment and betrayed the netroots. The rest of the committee Democrats voted for the amendment.

Action now moves to the Senate.

However, today was a victory as a few key players on the full committee changed their votes. Important action is required heading into the Senate but we have created significant momentum and the telco cartel is very afraid of us now.

This is not how they wanted it to go down. They wanted this amendment to fail quietly, so the Senate would not take it up.

As one staffer on the Hill today told The Agonist:


They wanted this to pass in the dead of night. Instead, people are going to be energized, and the Senate is really going to matter.

We changed the rules today. Great work.

MyDD has more, including more on the five committee Dems who voted to pass the bill. San Antonio Rep. Charlie Gonzales comes in for some extra scorn for proposing a bizarre amendment that was said to be about "regulating search engines". Vince examines Gonzales' actions in more detail.

I think the point to take away here is that the more attention we pay to this, the more likely we are to get a favorable outcome. So, if you haven't done it yet:

Read Save the Internet.
Sign the MoveOn petition.
If you're a MySpace person, go here.

And be sure to let your congressperson know how you feel about this. Let him or her know this vote is important to you.

Inaugural College Baseball Hall of Fame class announced

Here's your first set of inductees to the College Baseball Hall of Fame, currently under construction in Lubbock.


Former USC head baseball coach Rod Dedeaux has been elected to the College Baseball Hall of Fame, the College Baseball Foundation announced today.

He is one of 10 members who will comprise the first-ever induction class for the Hall of Fame located in Lubbock, Texas. Other members of the class include coaches Bobby Winkles of Arizona State, Skip Bertman of LSU, Ron Fraser of Miami and Cliff Gustafson of Texas, in addition to former players Bob Horner of Arizona State, Robin Ventura of Oklahoma State, Dave Winfield of Minnesota, Will Clark of Mississippi State and Brooks Kieschnick of Texas.

Dedeaux, who passed away on Jan. 5 at the age of 91, coached USC to 11 national championships, including an NCAA-record five consecutive titles from 1970-74. In his 45-year tenure at USC (1942-86), Dedeaux also posted an overall record of 1,332-571-11 (.699) while recording 28 conference titles. At his retirement, he had won more games than any other college baseball coach (he currently ranks seventh among Division I coaches). He coached 59 former players who played in the major leagues, including Tom Seaver, Mark McGwire, Randy Johnson, Fred Lynn, Dave Kingman, Roy Smalley, Don Buford, Ron Fairly, Rich Dauer, Steve Busby, Jim Barr and Steve Kemp.

[...]

The 2006 HOF class will be inducted as part of a two-day celebration to be held July 3-4 in Lubbock. Several events during the celebration will be carried nationally by Fox Sports Network, as well as the Fox College Sports Networks (Atlantic, Central and Pacific).

"The excitement has been building within the college baseball community since this project was first announced two years ago," said CBF Chairman/CEO John Askins. "Our entire community is thrilled to honor this outstanding group of individuals, whose accomplishments will withstand the test of time."


According to the official press release (PDF) of the College Baseball Foundation, two of the pre-1947 nominees will be enshrined later this fall. Bios and stats for the five players inducted are here, the same for the coaches is here. The list of 46 original nominees seems to have disappeared for some reason - at least, I can't find it.

Oh, well. Despite the grumblings of the last commenter in my previous post, I think this is a good list. You can never pick a top five without leaving someone worthy off. I'm sure Pete Incaviglia will be in there by 2008 or shortly thereafter.

Photo oops

First noted over the weekend, the story of Rep. John Carter getting his picture taken in Iraq with the son of Mary Beth Harrell, his opponent in November, made it to the Washington Post on Wednesday.


Vast numbers of lawmakers have signed on to the congressional delegation shuttle to Baghdad. And nary a one has failed to ensure that troops from the home district - who, of course, have nothing better to do - are rounded up to have lunch and talk to their representative.

These chats - and the fine photos they produce - pay handsome dividends. Obviously there are the bragging rights: "Well, I've been over there talking with our troops, with Jimmy Jones and Sally Smith - whose parents are here today - and with others, and let me tell you . . ."

More ominously, the lawmaker might even return from these forays thinking he or she actually knows what’s going on over there. A truly frightening thought.

But it's the photos with the brass, Iraqi leaders and especially the troops - suitable for signing, for newsletters and for campaign literature - that are the key benefit, though some photos don't quite work out.

For example, here's a very nice shot of Rep. John Carter (R-Tex.), whose district includes Fort Hood and its 4th Infantry Division. As always, some troops from home were selected to meet with the congressman.

Apparently somebody had a sense of humor. Carter found out afterward that this warm "grip 'n' grin" shot was with Sgt. 1st Class Rob Harrell, whose mother, Mary Beth Harrell, a lawyer in Killeen, Tex., will be Carter's Democratic opponent in November. The challenger's husband, we're told, is retired military. Another son, also on active duty, is to be deployed in Iraq this summer.


You can see the picture here. There's also a good Kos diary on the topic. I love this quote from that diary:

Yet another classic case of a Republican trying to look tough, and running into a Democrat who is.

Ouch. As Eye on Williamson notes, Carter was not happy about being caught unprepared like this. Harrell has been campaigning pretty hard on her military connections, so one of his staffers really ought to have known about this. Underdog campaigns literally can't buy this kind of publicity.

In fairness to Carter, he was gracious enough to call Harrell upon his return and tell her that her son was doing fine. Good on him for that.

Net neutrality update

Just a quick update on the fight over Net neutrality. Sean-Paul has a good roundup of links and other information here. If you want a more technical description of the issues at hand, check out Kevin Drum, Crooked Timber, and Unrequited Narcissism (link via Ezra. I agree with his bottom line summary of the argument:


[S]top looking for nuance. It's simpler than you're making it out to be. Here, let's let AT&T; chairman Ed Whitacre explain:

"They don't have any fiber out there. They don't have any wires... They use my lines for free - and that's bull... For a Google or a Yahoo or a Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes for free is nuts!"

But of course, they don't use them for free. They pay a broadband wholesaler. You pay the Ed Whitacres of the world for your home connection. And Ed and the broadband wholesalers (he's one, too) have complicated agreements governing how they exchange traffic equitably. Everything's paid for; nobody's getting away with anything.

It's as simple as this: Mr. Whitacre and the other ISP stakeholders have convinced themselves that when someone isn't paying them money, it constitutes an injustice. They're wrong - really wrong. Don't give an inch, don't give equal time, don't pretend there's more to it than this. There isn't.


Pretty much. Another simple way of looking at this: How can you be wrong if Alyssa Milano is on your side?

What is the sound of one party debating?

This really annoys me. One could read this Chron piece on how HB3 was passed and come away with the impression that the only debate over the bill was between conservatives who wanted to cut property taxes by raiding the surplus and conservatives who wanted to cut property taxes by swapping them for the TTRC business tax plan. No other possible reason for opposing HB3 is mentioned, let alone explored, even though the crux of a big swath of HB3's opposition is right here:


In addition to the surplus spending bill, the House also passed a bill dedicating all future new business tax revenue to property tax cuts and one that raises an estimated $60 million a year through better collection of sales taxes on used vehicles. A bill to raise $700 million through higher cigarette taxes is scheduled for House debate Thursday.

Emphasis mine. This is what united the Democrats in opposition to HB3, and what has them grumbling about the ten who broke off to support it. (The 2008 version of Al Edwards can be found at the top of the list on the right sidebar of the Chron story.) In a vacuum, HB3 has its merits. It's not adequate, to be sure, but it's at least a semi-decent starting point for finally fixing the laughable franchise tax. HB4 and HB5 have things to recommend them, too. But once HB2 passed, once the business tax was essentially severed from school finance, none of that mattered. That's what the Democrats were fighting about, and it's an argument that deserves to be heard. Apparently, since Janet Elliott and Clay Robison didn't bother to collect any quotes from anyone making that argument, it's up to the likes of me to make it audible. Thanks, guys.

For what it's worth, the Statesman has a very similar story, though they at least managed to quote one Democrat. The DMN, Express News and Star Telegram have all moved on to the Senate.

UPDATE: If the comments in this DallasBlog post are any indication, HB3 is not very popular among Republicans. Again, their reason for not liking it is not the same as mine, and I'm still cheesed at the Chron for so blatantly short-shrifting the Democratic perspective, but this is nonetheless worth reading.

Where we stand after Monday

In writing about what I think of the legislative action on Monday, I'm going to start with a long quote from Rep. Garnet Coleman, which I take from this useful Capitol Annex post that gives an overview of how everyone voted on everything.


I oppose CSHB 1 because, at this point in the process, I cannot support legislation that only addresses property tax reduction and does nothing to improve our children’s schools. If, at a later date in the session, a bill is presented to this legislature that would increase our state’s investment in public education, I will support CSHB 1 or its equivalent.

I support property tax reduction and recognize that it is a worthy policy goal. Obviously, we must address the issue of an unconstitutional property tax system in order to comply with the supreme court ruling. Although CSHB 1 addresses the property tax issue, my constituents and a majority of Texans believe we are in special session to increase the state’s investment in our public schools because that is their highest priority.

Unfortunately, instead of placing equal importance on property tax cuts and our children’s schools, CSHB 1 fails to provide a single additional dollar for our public education. Even worse, CSHB 1 would actually take money away from Texas schoolchildren by deleting a rider that was intended to provide $1.8 billion in new money for our public schools. Additionally, CSHB 1 would make it more difficult for local school districts to raise funds for local enrichment. It also establishes unsound budget policy by requiring a property tax reduction without a corresponding funding source to cover the cost of the cut - a move that could certainly lead to an increase in the state sales tax and other consumption taxes that are disproportionately harmful to my constituents.

I stand ready to vote for a school finance solution that would provide both meaningful school property tax reduction and increased investment in our children’s schools. CSHB 1 fails that test, and for the foregoing reasons, I must oppose it. - Coleman


The problem with Monday's votes is pretty neatly summed up by Matt, and it reiterates what Coleman is saying. It's not that this special session has done nothing to fix school finance - as that is not yet on the call, we knew going into the session that it would wait, perhaps till next year. It's that thanks to HB2, nothing that comes out of this session, or any other barring a change, will do anything to fix school finance. Whatever the merits of the TTRC plan are, it was sold to the public as a way to put school finance on more solid footing, while also providing for property tax relief. You'll get the latter, but not the former, not now and not in the future. That's what HB2 did.

It's possible we'll eventually get some money thrown at the schools this session. The Senate is already talking about adding a teacher pay raise plus some other miscellaneous spending to their version of HB1. That would come out of the existing surplus. Any future salary increases for teachers, or other extra money to pay for things like the continued rapid growth in enrollment, will have to come from somewhere other than the new business tax. I suppose we should all start hoping that Brooke Rollins is a visionary and not a hack, because we're going to need endless surpluses from here on out.

One of the things that this suggests to me is that we may wind up revisiting the issue of adequacy a lot sooner than perhaps the State Supreme Court thought we would. How can you claim that the system will be adequate when you're enshrining in law a cap on how much revenue for schools there can be? Any new money that the TTRC plan generates goes to buying down property taxes, period. Where's the mechanism to keep up with enrollment growth, let alone state and federal mandates or the need to educate in an increasingly complex and technology-oriented world? The more affluent school districts will have the option of raising their school taxes a few more pennies to make up any shortfall they perceive. The less so will be right back where they started, unable to keep up. Do we really want to go through this again so soon?

I don't necessarily agree with his conclusion about HB3 equaling an income tax, but Rep. Gary Elkins, no one's idea of a tax-and-spend type, gets this right (also quoting from that Capitol Annex post from above):


Many supporters of HB3 have argued that this new tax actually reflects a tax shift, shifting the tax burden from property owners to businesses that are currently not paying the franchise tax. I agree that this bill creates a tax shift, not a shift from property owners to businesses, but a shift from big business to thousands of small businesses. The governor’s own policy advisor has informed members of the house that the average small service sector business will pay more in taxes and in most cases double, triple, or even quadruple what they are currently paying under the current franchise tax system.

This new tax is bad public policy and is harmful to most of our small businesses. More importantly, my constituents can see through this subterfuge and recognize this tax to be what it actually is, a state income tax. For the cited
reasons, I must respectfully oppose this measure. - Elkins


Yep, it's a tax shift. Perry and Craddick tried and failed to swap sales taxes for property taxes last year, and this year they succeeded with the TTRC tax. Anyone want to guess where the inevitable shortfall for school finance will be made up down the line? I'll give you a hint: it rhymes with "Tales Max".

At this point, all I can do is hope that the Senate changes directions, and that either causes everything to fall apart or somehow, miraculously, Lt. Gov. Dewhurst doesn't get taken to the woodshed by Craddick again. (I suppose one bright spot in all this is that it's given In the Pink the opportunity to quote from Meg Ryan movies again.) Maybe a little pressure can be applied to some of the wayward Dems for when these bills come up for final votes. All I can say right now is that given a choice between HBs 2 and 3, and the Get Out Of Dodge plan, I'd have picked the former as the lesser evil. At least then when we did have to start all over again, we wouldn't be doing so from a worse position than we're in now.

Finally, on a not-really-related note, I have to recognize State Rep. Joaquin Castro for pulling off this stunt. How that made it through is a mystery to me. I suppose anything really can happen during those long Legislative nights. Nicely played, sir.

Play the "Lost" game

The powers that be behind Lost have a new trick up their sleeve: An international, interactive game that will offer some information about the show.


It will begin May 2 in the United Kingdom, May 3 in the U.S. and May 6 in Australia. There is no winning prize, but the experience will offer clues that could unlock some of the island's many secrets.

"It's like a giant, worldwide mysterious jigsaw puzzle that will come to life for all the world to solve," Mike Benson, senior vice president of marketing for ABC Entertainment, said in a statement.

What is known about the challenge is that it includes the introduction of new characters and the mysterious Hanso Foundation. The first clue requires finding a toll-free number that will be released during the show or commercial breaks.

Clues will vary by continent, so participants will benefit from coordinating their information. ABC said the game is designed to appeal to both fans and people unfamiliar with Lost.


Pretty cool. Add this to the Bad Twin book (which you can pick up on Amazon) and you can see how good these guys are at publicity. Is this a new paradigm for TV, or are they just outliers on the curve? I don't know, but I'll be interested to see what they come up with next.

The East End BRT line

Christof takes a look at the Harrisburg/East End LRT/BRT lines and the ongoing process to determine where they should go. Not too surprisingly, it's a lot less politically charged than the Universities line. Check it out.

April 25, 2006
Rick Perry, record breaker

I've got to hand it to the Lone Star Project. They do come up with some original angles on current events.


It has been more than 100 years since a Congressional District has been left without a Congressman for longer than 130 Days. However, under the scheme hatched by Texas Governor Rick Perry and surrendering former House Republican Leader Tom DeLay, citizens in the 22nd District of Texas will be left without any Member of Congress representing them for at least 130 days, from June 30, 2006 until November 7, 2006. This gap in representation could be even longer if DeLay resigns earlier in June or if a run-off results from a November 7th special election, leaving the seat open another 30 days.

This assumes that there will be a double-barrelled election for CD22 in November - the regular between Nick Lampson, the Chosen One, independent Steve Stockman, and Libertarian Bob Smither; and a special, featuring God knows who for the right to serve from November through December, when Congress will likely be on recess much of the time anyway. We won't know for sure if this is what Perry has in mind until he is forced to do something by DeLay's departure. All I know is that I continue to fail to see the point of such a beast. Do it now, when it matters, or don't do it at all.

Anyway. Some entertaining history and other useful information follows, so check it out.

The municipal WiFi shakedown cruise

Dwight points to this article about some of the issues that the cities who have pioneered municipal WiFi service have encountered.


Joe Lusardi's friends back in New York couldn't believe it when he told them he'd have free Internet access through this city's new Wi-Fi network. It's free all right, but residents are, to some extent, getting what they pay for.

More than a month after St. Cloud launched what analysts say is the country's first free citywide Wi-Fi network, Lusardi and others in this 28,000-person Orlando suburb are still paying to use their own Internet service providers as dead spots and weak signals keep some residents offline and force engineers to retool the free system.

"Everybody's happy they were going to have it, but I don't know if they're happy right now," said Lusardi, a 66-year-old retired New York City transit worker.

[...]

At first, a desktop computer in Lusardi's house could use the Wi-Fi network with no problem, but his laptop would only work outdoors. Even then it was too slow and unreliable, so he kept his $20 per month Sprint DSL service.

Now the desktop doesn't even work, and he's completely abandoned the idea of dropping his pay service and using the network.

"It's just total frustration," Lusardi said. "I'm going to stay with the DSL and just forget it, because I don't think it's going to work. Very few people are going to use it, and they're going to say it's underutilized and they're going to shut it down."

Lusardi didn't shell out the money for a signal-boosting device St. Cloud recommends for those having trouble connecting - City Hall sells them for $170.

[Glenn Fleishman, who runs a Web site called Wi-Fi Networking News,] said the fact that others share Lusardi's frustration is a crucial technical and public relations problem for the vanguard project. He said residents should understand many won't be able to use the free network without additional equipment to strengthen the signal.

"It's very large and it's very ambitious, so they're going to hit some of these problems before some of the marketing and technology is out there," he said. "Products have to catch up to this new market."

Fleishman said other cities would likely have the same problems - in bigger cities, even larger ones - if they didn't fully inform the public of necessary equipment and network limits.


I'm not too worried about what this may mean for Houston's project. For one thing, actual deployment is still a ways off, and there will be plenty of time for the bidders in Houston to learn from other cities' experiences. For another, technology in this area is evolving fairly rapidly, so some of the problems that have been seen may be mooted by imminent changes in the tools that are available. Finally, I expect that the users of the downtown pilot will put the system through its paces and thus identify weaknesses early on. Houston may be on the leading edge here, but it's at the back of that edge. We'll have some bumps along the way, but not as many as the real trailblazers will have had.

HB3 passes

Ultimately, the new business tax plan, written into HB3, passed the House on first reading last night. There's still another round of approval for it before it goes to the Senate, but I think it's safe to say that it's been approved by the House.

Let's look at the coverage, starting with the Chron.


The $3 billion measure will now go to the Senate, with supporters hoping the two chambers will finally be able to agree on a tax overhaul. Four previous efforts in the past two years failed.

"The (tax) system is broken. It's time to fix it. This is a fair bill," said Rep. John Otto, R-Dayton, a co-sponsor of the measure that passed 80-68.

But Democrats attacked it as underfunded and complained that it wouldn't raise any additional funding for the public schools.

"It is the largest tax bill in Texas history, and it doesn't give one penny to the public schools," said Rep. Jim Dunnam, D-Waco.

[...]

Several dozen amendments, many proposing special tax breaks for an assortment of industries, were offered to the business tax bill. Most were withdrawn or defeated, but one amendment, an accounting provision designed to soften the financial blow for current payers of the franchise tax, could cost as much as $40 million in tax collections in the first year.

Altogether, Speaker Tom Craddick said, amendments that were adopted cut $58 million from the $3.45 billion that the bill, as approved by the House Ways and Means Committee, would have raised for the governor's proposed property tax buy-down.

[...]

The House adopted 141-1 an amendment to prohibit companies from deducting the costs of hiring undocumented immigrants from their taxable income. The provision also would give the state comptroller the authority to enforce the restriction.

Rep. Rafael Anchia, D-Dallas, the amendment's sponsor and the son of immigrants, said he was attempting to crack down on the "thousands and thousands" of Texas businesses that hire illegal workers.

"Without a demand, there's really no supply," he said.

"I'm tired of hearing the demagoguery out in the marketplace," he said, referring to the current political debate over immigration. "Unfortunately, it's Texas business that is breaking the law on a daily basis."

Otto questioned how effectively the state would be able to enforce the provision, but only Rep. Ryan Guillen, D-Rio Grande City, voted against it.

[...]

The House adopted an amendment by Rep. Larry Phillips, R-Sherman, that would remove the tax liability from any company owing less than $1,000 in taxes a year.

Rep. Corbin Van Arsdale, R-Tomball, won approval of a provision that would require Texas voters to approve any subsequent increase in the new business tax rate.


In addition, a "safety net" provision that would allow schools to remain open if all else failed passed by a 146-2 margin. Other bills representing other parts of the Perry plan were brought to the floor as well. The Star Telegram runs them down:

Lawmakers also adopted House Bill 2, which requires any extra revenue that comes from revamping the state tax system go to lowering property taxes -- and not to increasing spending on education.

The bill passed on a largely party-line vote, with the Republicans prevailing 81-65. Among the local delegation, only state Rep. Toby Goodman, R-Arlington, bucked party leadership.

Late Monday, lawmakers also adopted House Bill 4 that revamps sales taxes for used cars.

Near midnight, House Bill 5, the last piece of the legislative package, was rejected on a technical point of order. The fate of the bill was unclear. Under it, the state would have phased in an additional $1.05-per-pack tax on cigarettes over three years. The original proposal by Perry's commission would have immediately increased the cigarette tax by $1 per pack.


Aaron Pena has a few more details.

I admit, I'm a bit surprised at how quickly all this got passed. Matt quotes from the Quorum Report that the status of HB3 was in doubt early on Monday, which is why debate on it was delayed. QR:


In post-recess comments, [House Speaker Tom] Craddick confirmed that support for HB 3, the revamped business tax, had slipped to 60 votes by Monday morning. It took a concerted effort by the leadership to get the total back up to 80 votes, he said.

How did they do that? I believe the DMN story answers that question.

Sponsors of the business tax were unsure whether they had secured enough votes to pass the measure as debate began.

On Monday morning, Mr. Perry's staff and sponsors on both sides of the aisle were still polling members who had not committed their votes.

Thought to be wavering were some conservative Republicans concerned that they could pay a political price for enacting new taxes when the state has a robust surplus.

But supporters of the plan, trying to bring more votes on board, argued that it could have a political benefit.

If the bill passes, Mr. Perry "will run for re-election based on the tax cuts made possible by this bill," said Rep. Mike Krusee, R-Round Rock. "People who vote against making the business tax fair are obstructing property tax cuts."


Presumably, the argument was that it would be easier to explain action than inaction. Dissent on HB3 was broad but not focused, with Democrats and conservative Republicans having different problems with it. I expect that wavering members eventually bought into the idea that passing HB3 can be spun positively if needed, while yet another failed special session could not be explained away in any fashion. If I were in their place, I'd probably find that compelling, too.

I assume the problems with HB5, the tobacco tax bill, will be fixed and the bill will be passed. Enough money has leaked out via various loopholes and exceptions already. The loss of that revenue would put a big hole in Perry's shaky-from-the-start claims that the total TTRC package balances out the property tax cuts.

More media coverage is here and here; more blog coverage is here, here, and here. I'm still thinking about the implications of all this, and will write more when I've collected my thoughts. I believe the next action is scheduled for Thursday, so we may be able to catch our breath for a moment or two. As always, stay tuned.

75 things to love about Texas

Via Norbizness comes this Texas Monthly list of 75 Things To Love About Texas, there for the usual limited time. It's a good idea, I think, to pause occasionally while the Lege is busy doing Lord knows what with school finance and remember why we care in the first place. All lists like these are subjective, and for sure there are things that they did not include that you or I might have (my list would include such things as the Schlitterbahn, the Marching Owl Band, the Art Car Parade, and the David Adickes statue of Sam Houston up in Huntsville, in case you're curious), but this is a fine starting point for discussion and/or trip planning. Check it out.

Save the Internet

Let me add my voice to those calling out for the preservation of Net Neutrality (I have posted on this in the past). What you need to know is here and here. The players in this drama are described here. If there's one thing I'm totally not shocked about, it's that a leader among the bad guys is Smokey Joe Barton. The man can't help himself. (One of the ways you can help is by supporting David Harris in his race against Smokey Joe.)

Anyway. Read Save the Internet. Sign the MoveOn petition. If you're a MySpace person, go here. And be sure to let your congressperson know how you feel about this.

Once again with a la carte cable

Once again, the concept of a la carte pricing for cable television is in the news (see here and here for background). Pretty much everything you need to know about the debate is in the following paragraphs.


In a preemptive move in this regard, Time Warner and other cable companies recently introduced a "family friendly" tier of 16 G-rated channels.

The tier contained no sports or movie networks, nor such offerings as History Channel or Cartoon Network, because there's no guarantee those channels won't cross the G-rated line. (Indeed, Cartoon Network offers adult programming during late-night hours.)

Cable companies also claim that they have made it possible for digital subscribers to set parental controls and have spent millions in advertising that capability. Still, fewer than 4 percent of their customers make use of it.

[Federal Communications Commission chairman Kevin] Martin said he has "legitimate concerns" about the "family friendly" tiers that were offered. He has the backing of the Parents Television Council and other conservative groups.

"We believe the family tier is a product that's designed to fail," said Dan Isett, PTC's director of corporate and government affairs. "It does nothing to solve the problem, which is that families are not free to decide for themselves what constitutes a family tier."


Whether or not the Time-Warner family-friendly offering is designed to fail is irrelevant. From where I sit, it's highly unlikely that any such package would be successful. That's because whatever the TWCs of the world put in or left out, some vocal group would complain about it. Sports channels? They glorify gambling by showing all that poker. Cartoon channels? Three words: "Beavis and Butthead". Or "South Park". Or "Adult Swim". You get the picture. The History Channel? All Nazis, all the time. And on and on.

Which is a point in favor of the arguments put forward by the Parents Television Council. Let us make the choice, they say, and don't make us pay for anything we don't want.

Seems reasonable until you ask why cable providers are being forced by government intervention to modify their businesses in a way that they say will be unprofitable. Whatever happened to the free market? If the demand for family-friendly-only programming were truly there, what's to stop a Pat Robertson or a Rupert Murdoch from starting up a satellite company that would offer those services to PTCers? Why patronize Time Warner at all if they're not giving you what you want? If that's more damaging to their bottom line than the a la carte option that they're fighting, either they'll change their ways or a competitor will step in and take that market away from them. Isn't that how it's supposed to work?

Of course, future technology - near future, mind you - may obviate all of this.


"I don't think it's necessary to push a la carte because in various ways it's going to happen as we see many more ways of distributing video," says Michael Rogers.

Rogers, former head of the Washington Post Company's new media division and currently a columnist on MSNBC.com, believes the proliferation of platforms - cell phones, iTunes and especially the Internet - has already made a la carte a nonissue.

But Time Warner's McMillan thinks the same issues will linger because of the cable industry's business structure.

"The next step is something called 'switch digital,' " he says of a plan that joins television and the Internet. "But even then I don't think we're going to be able to set aside the contracts we've got with all of our suppliers and say (to the consumer), 'You're going to be able to buy this a la carte.' You would have to renegotiate all those contracts.

"And if I own Speed Channel (an auto racing network), what do you think I'm going to ask for that programming on an a la carte basis versus a broadcast basis as part of a tier? They're going to ask for more money. The reason: They're going to be taking a bigger risk because that channel won't be grouped with other channels. (The smaller channels) believe, and I concur, this would hurt their ability to draw advertising."


It's just a matter of time before any content you want will be available for a price via Internet download. We're almost there already. Once that happens, who needs a cable or satellite plan at all? I rather think that this debate is going to fade away before it gets fully resolved.

And while all this may be bad news for niche channels under the current structure, who's to say they won't re-emerge as lower-cost online programmers? There's already some entertaining stuff out there. That old adage about closing doors and opening windows applies here. I'm not ready to weep for anyone just yet.

(For what it's worth, the brother-in-law of one of my best friends is a producer of that last site. Just in case anyone asks.)

April 24, 2006
What is the Lege up to now?

As I understand it, the debate on HB3 will be going till midnight or so. That's past my bedtime, so I'll do a link roundup now and figure out the news in the morning. Here's what we know so far.

The first thing you need to know is that HB1, the Get Out Of Dodge plan, has passed out of the House by a near-unanimous margin.


The House approved an 11 percent cut in school property taxes Monday that proponents said would ensure schools stay open this year.

"We can go home and tell the people that we have reduced the property taxes, that the schools will stay open in June," said Rep. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa.

[...]

House Bill 1 passed 139-5.

The idea behind it is that the state will give school districts more than $2 billion from the state's surplus, and the districts will use that money to lower their tax rates to provide some breathing room between themselves and the maximum rate. Then, the districts can exercise their newfound discretion and inch their tax rates back up.


This is presumably for the worst-case scenario (at least, worst from some perspectives) that nothing else gets done. One assumes no one wants to face the voters if the schools are not open. As I've said before, however, wait until the West Orange-Cove plaintiffs make their next move before you breathe any sighs of relief. More on this here, here (on recapture), here, and (much more) here.

The most blatantly political thing to happen today was this.


The House version of Gov. Rick Perry’s tax overhaul says that the secretary of state - an office that has little involvement in tax policy - will write a letter and send it to county tax assessor-collectors so they can send it out to taxpayers around Oct. 1. The letter would tell voters, er, taxpayers about the property-tax reductions that, presumably, the Legislature will have just passed.

Some lawmakers said this is simply a government-funded political advertisement a month before an election. “When we tax people and we charge them a tax, we don’t ever send them a notice,” said Rep. Senfronia Thompson, D-Houston.

Rep. Ana Hernandez, D-Houston, tried to change the proposal so the comptroller, who deals very much with tax policy, would write the letter. Initially an effort to kill her amendment was defeated. But then some lawmakers’ “machines malfunctioned.” Here’s what that usually means: They either saw how the vote came out and didn’t want to make anyone important mad by siding with the wrong side, or they were asked nicely by House leaders to change their votes. When the dust settled, Hernandez’s amendment failed.

Something else to keep in mind: the comptroller is a woman named Carole Keeton Strayhorn who is running against GOP Gov. Rick Perry. She has called Perry’s tax proposal, in part, a “hot check.” Her letter indeed would have been interesting.

Instead it will be written by Perry’s appointed secretary of state.

“It’s for transparency, it’s to make sure everyone is aware of what we have done,” said Rep. Beverly Woolley, R-Houston, a proponent of sending a letter authored by the secretary of state.

Seems pretty transparent, indeed.


No freaking kidding. If the Democrats in this state had any money, you could make a nice attack ad out of this. Hell, maybe Strayhorn will - for sure she won't be quiet about it. Go for it, Carole, this is exactly the sort of thing you really excel at. Kudos to Rep. Ana Hernandez, in her first session, for nearly giving this turkey the shiv it deserved. More here and here. Some tidbits on the current status of opposition to HB3 is here. Aaron Pena still thinks it will pass, albeit narrowly.

That's about it for now. Other coverage can be found via Matt, In the Pink, and here. If you haven't bookmarked Capitol Annex yet, do it - Vince has been glued to the live feeds, and is transcribing up a storm. More tomorrow when the dailies do their thing.

Meet Ellen Cohen Wednesday night

If you've got the time for only one political event this week in Houston, this is the one to go to:


The Houston Democratic Forum invites you to a General Meeting and Discussion with special guest

Ellen Cohen
Candidate for the Texas House of Representatives
District 134

Wednesday, April 26th, 6pm to 8pm

Quattro Lounge at the Four Seasons Hotel
1300 Lamar, Downtown Houston

Cash Bar
Valet parking is only $3 with validation, and there is ample self-parking in area

RSVP: ljdead@yahoo.com or 713.885.0697


The guest speaker will be Ellen Cohen, who is running against Rep. Martha Wong for the Texas Legislature, State House District 134. For the last 15 years, she has been President and CEO of the Houston Area Women's Center. For more on Ellen and the campaign, please check www.ellencohen.org. We ask that all HDF members and friends come out on the 26th and meet the woman who will defeat Rep. Wong. District 134 includes Bellaire, West University, River Oaks and parts of Meyerland and Montrose.


I'm Mister Mom this week (Tiffany is off on a business trip), so I unfortunately cannot make it to this. If you can, though, I encourage you to go. HDF meetings are always fun, and Ellen's an awesome candidate.

Newcomers and comebacks

The new kid on the block today is Texas Kos, an outgrowth of the (very busy) Yahoo group of the same name. It's one of those hot new Soapblox sites, so you can join in and add content as you wish. Welcome to the neighborhood, y'all.

Meanwhile, The American Street is up and running again. Their revamped roster of regular posters includes Texans Arvin Hill and Bride of Acheron, and they occasionally let the odd stray in to do a guest post or two. Nice design, useful features like the state-by-state listing of progressive blogs, and good content - what more do you want?

(And if your answer to that last question is "The opportunity to hoist a few Shiner Bocks with fellow liberals in Amarillo", I'm pleased to tell you that you can indeed do that.)

Let the legislative liveblogging begin!

With five bills comprising the TTRC plan to be debated, there's a lot of moving parts to keep track of. Here's what we know so far:

Debate on HB3 has been postponed until 1 PM, which is to say right about now. That's the one that would enact the actual business tax that the TTRC proposed. Bill sponsor Rep. Jim Keffer wanted to run some stuff by Comptroller Strayhorn before bringing it all to the House floor.

Once again, the heavy lifting is being done by Vince, who has two liveblogging threads going. I have to agree with him on this exchange between Reps. Warren Chisum and Harold Dutton over HB1, the so-called Get Out Of Dodge plan, for which Chisum is the sponsor:


Dutton: "We're trying to follow the court's admonitions? [with this bill.] That gets us out of the trap currently, I wonder if you have any sort of prognosis about how long before we're back in the same trap if we do what this particular bill prescribes."

Now Chisum is proceeding to explain the SCOTX decision…doesn't seem like he's answering Dutton's question.

Chisum: "We have a 17 cent, after this buydown…where school districts could go in and access new revenue." Now he's explaining how the local ISDs can increase tax rates.

Chisum: "As for how long that would last, that would be up to the court. There'd have to be another lawsuit."

Dutton: "Do you have a prognosis of when we'll be back to a court might deem us to have a statewide property tax.

Chisum: "Well, Mr. Dutton, it will be at least to the general session. I'm relying on future legislators to look at this…"

Dutton: "…it recognizes that this is only a temporary solution to the challenge made by the Supreme Court made by our funding system…"

Chisum: "Absolutley…"

I cannot believe this…the author of the bill has ADMITTED this is a stop-gap measure.


While it's surprising to see him say it, it should not be a surprise for any one of us to hear it. It is the truth, after all.

More: On the concept of dedicated dollars, on the subject of doctors' deductions, and on the first real test for newly-minted Rep. Donna Howard. Stay tuned.

UPDATE: An amendment to maintain recapture in HB1 has been passed. An amendment to prevent the sending out of political advertisements at taxpayer expense was tabled. PinkDome is back in the game. And here's a handy guide to telling apart the Keffer brothers.

Political theater alert

This is set to take place in less than an hour in the Capitol. Call me crazy, but I don't think these folks are gonna get embraced by the state Republican leadership. Whether they represent enough of a force to throw a wrench into the works for Governor Perry and the TTRC plans remains to be seen.

Garcia and Nelson-Turnier

The Red State brings the latest round of news on Juan Garcia: a visit from his Harvard Law classmate Sen. Barack Obama, and a glowing column from Carlos Guerra. It's a rare State Rep campaign that can get this kind of coverage, but then it's a rare State Rep candidate that can bring such star power to his events. With Henry Cisneros scheduled for a May fundraiser, there's more of that to come.

Dot Nelson-Turnier's race isn't nearly as hgh profile, but she still drew a nice and energetic crowd to a recent event on her behalf. Stace has the writeup on that one.

Plotting your commute

Have you ever wanted to do a ridiculously in-depth analysis of how long it takes you to drive to and from work, and what factors might play a significant role in your commute times? This guy followed through on that urge, and the resulting blog post is loaded with boxplots, histograms, and an impressive amount of statistical geekery. If you like this sort of thing, you will find this to be the sort of thing that you like. Thanks to Binkley for sending it my way.

CD10 and straight ticket voting

There was some good feedback to this post on the odds of Libertarian Party candidate Michael Badnarik getting as much as 20% of the vote in CD10 this year. I was going to reply in the comments, but got a little carried away in framing my response, so I figured I'd do a full-fledged post instead.

My contention in that previous post was that straight ticket voting alone would be too big a barrier for a Libertarian candidate to overcome, even one that might have the financial resources that Badnarik apparently has. As that's basically a math question, it becomes almost a matter of principle for me to follow up. So here we are.

To do this, I'm making a couple of assumptions. One is that the proportion of straight ticket voters is more or less uniform throughout a given county, and two is that the rate of straight ticket voting doesn't vary much with the level of turnout. I need the first assumption to draw any conclusions about CD10, since the Secretary of State precinct data does not include straight party data. I could get it from the canvass report, at least on the Harris County Clerk page, but frankly, that was too much work. Assumption #2 is needed to draw conclusions about 2006 from 2004 data. I'm pretty sure that straight party voting is on the rise over the past few years, but investigating that claim is for another day.

Anyway. I used countywide races in Travis and Harris to determine the average totals for each party, the approximate two-party total turnout for CD10 in those counties, and the proportion of straight ticket voters. Countywides have slightly fewer votes overall than statewides, but the differences aren't great. I used the average of the statewides to determine what a total vote count would have been in the CD10 race had it been a traditional Dem-Rep race. As with the county numbers, I rounded a bit; the final tally was 275,000.

Without further ado, here's the data:


Harris straight GOP 370,455
Harris avg GOP 530,000
Harris avg straight 69.90%
Harris avg CD10 vote 82,968
Minimum CD10 votes 57,991

Harris straight Dem 325,097
Harris avg Dem 470,000
Harris avg straight 69.17%
Harris avg CD10 vote 26,156
Minimum CD10 votes 18,091

Travis straight GOP 76,648
Travis avg GOP 140,000
Travis avg straight 54.75%
Travis avg CD10 vote 46,885
Minimum CD10 votes 25,668

Travis straight Dem 105,940
Travis avg Dem 190,000
Travis avg straight 55.76%
Travis avg CD10 vote 64,688
Minimum CD10 votes 36,071

Other CD10 str GOP 16,500
Other CD10 str Dem 11,000

Min CD10 GOP 100,159
Min CD10 Dem 65,162
Pct of total 60.12%


The straight Dem/straight Rep numbers are from the respective County Clerk election returns pages. Avg Dem/Avg Rep is as described above, eyeballed and rounded from the countywide races. Avg straight is the percentage of the county votes cast by straight ticket voters. Avg CD10 vote is also as described above. Take the total county vote for CD10, multiply by the average percentage each party got, then by the straight party percentage, and you get the minimum CD10 vote - my projection of how many straight party votes there'd have been for each candidate in a hypothetical Dem-Rep race from CD10 in 2004. (The other county straight party vote is based on there being about 55,000 votes from the nine other counties, a 60/40 Rep/Dem split, and 50% of the votes being straight ticket.) As you can see, that comes to a smidge more than 60% of the total vote.

I was actually surprised that the total was that high, especially in Harris County. I will have to go back and check 2002 and 2000 totals for more comparison, but the bottom line is clear: More than half of all the votes in CD10 are from straight tickets. If these ratios hold in 2006, then for Michael Badnarik or any Libertarian to get 20% in CD10, he'd have to win at least half of the remaining ballots. Needless to say, I think that's not going to happen.

Of course, you can't talk about straight ticket voting in 2006 without also talking about what kind of effect the presence of two independents in the Governor's race may have. I think it's likely that there will be fewer straight party ballots cast this year than there otherwise might have been, but I would not venture a guess as to how many. Could be one percent, could be ten, I don't know. While it's true that you can cast a straight party ballot and then override it in a given race, it's my opinion that not too many people do that. I think that if someone who might normally push the straight party button decides to step out for Strayhorn or Kinky, that person will vote in individual races.

I do not expect that this will cause more people to split their tickets. I think that if a nominal Republican breaks off to vote for Strayhorn, he or she will still vote for Republicans down the line. I know some Democrats have expressed hope that this may cause some of their candidates to get more of a look from folks who don't normally consider voting for Dems, but I'm skeptical of that. What I do think might happen is that there may be fewer votes cast overall in downballot races. If so, I believe that may be good for Democrats. One thing that struck me as I pored through the CD10 data was that there was much more dropoff in countywide races for Republican candidates than there was for Democrats. In Harris, where there was very little variation in the partisan ratio from race to race, the average countywide Republican lost 4614 votes from George Bush, total, while the average countywide Dem had 141 fewer tallies than John Kerry. In Travis, where the standard deviation was much higher, it was a loss of 5964 versus a gain of 839. You can see the data for yourself in this spreadsheet. A drop in straight party votes would likely increase the amount of undervoting farther down the ballot, and I believe that would disproportionately be to Democrats' benefits. Again, I wouldn't guess how big an effect that might be, but I believe it will be there in some fashion. We'll know in November.

California versus Bush on energy policy

Fascinating LA Times piece by national politics writer Ron Brownstein on how California is aggressively pursuing an energy policy that focuses on reducing oil usage and cutting down carbon dioxide emissions. What makes this stand out is that, incontrast to the reasons President Bush gives for opposing these actions, they see this as an engine for economic growth, and they have the backing of industry and venture capital.


Two economic assumptions guide the California Idea. One is that the energy mandates will create a mass market that lowers the price for clean technologies like solar electricity or ultra-low-emission cars. The mandates "say everybody is going to have to do this, and that spurs the mass production that brings the price down," says Terry Tamminen, [Governor] Schwarzenegger's special advisor for energy and the environment.

The second assumption is that the mandates will help California capture a leading share of the jobs and investment created by the transition to a clean-energy economy. The requirements on renewable energy, tailpipe emissions and potentially on greenhouse gases will create enormous demand in the state for new products and processes - from solar energy to biofuels to the retrofitting of manufacturing plants. And that should encourage many of the companies meeting that demand to locate in California.

Strikingly, some of Silicon Valley's top venture capitalists such as John Doerr and Vinod Khosla and technology executives from Google and Sun Microsystems are enthusiastically promoting the California energy strategy. They recognize that reducing America's reliance on fossil fuels is not only a national security and environmental imperative but also a potential gold rush.


This is a bipartisan move, with the Democratic-controlled Assembly working on legislation that would implement a "cap and trade" system for greenhouse emissions. I think history will prove them right, but read the piece and make up your own mind. Link via Greg.

April 23, 2006
Pena on the rule changes

Rep. Aaron Pena talks about the rules changes that were passed in the House on Friday and on the current level of support for HB1, a/k/k the Get Out Of Dodge plan. The full floor debate in the House on all the bills that implement the TTRC plan is tomorrow. We'll see after that if all the talk about dealing with teacher pay raises and other funding items was so much bunkum or not.

In the meantime, school districts everywhere will continue to raise money on their own to pay for all kinds of basic needs.


Parents resort to fundraisers to boost teacher salaries, buy library books and even replace classroom doors.

Bond elections once reserved for new schools or fancy stadiums are now tapped for more basic needs: replacing outdated computers, repairing old sewer lines and fixing worn roofs.

Financial patches like these aren't what you'd expect from some of the state's most elite school districts. But the Highland Park, Richardson and Carroll school districts - all considered property wealthy under the state's school finance system - have been paying the bills this way for some time.

The picture is bleaker in property-poor areas that rely on these districts for money to equalize education funding in Texas. Many poorer districts can only dream of providing the teacher pay, services and education extras still standard in wealthy schools, even under Texas's share-the-wealth system known as Robin Hood.

In Venus, a one-stoplight town southeast of Fort Worth, the school district receives some money from the Carroll district. But it's not enough to get the youngest students out of portable buildings whose floors pull away from the wall.

[...]

In the Richardson school district, Dinah Miller is part of a statewide political action committee called Texas Parent PAC. In the recent primary election, members sought to unseat lawmakers who they say have not supported public schools.

"I challenge people to hang out at my school and tell me where else we can cut," she said, noting a recent parent-teacher effort to raise money for new classroom doors at Prestonwood Elementary.


As they say, read the whole thing.

UPDATE: The Muse has a letter from Rep. Scott Hochberg to his constituents describing the bills up for debate and the moves by the GOP to limit that debate. Check it out.

Marsha Rovai

Remember the woman who was shoved at the recent Nick Lampson press conference in Sugar Land, held shortly after Tom DeLay announced his future resignation from Congress? She's filed a complaint in connection with the incident.


The probe has taken an unusual twist, because the man who has been named in the alleged assault is Ken Dexter, the foreman of the Fort Bend County grand jury.

Dexter, 55, who ran for county tax assessor-collector in 2004 and lost, was out of town and could not be reached for comment Friday.

Marsha Rovai, the woman who said she was assaulted, filed a complaint last week with police, saying she was pushed and that someone pulled her hat down and knocked off her glasses.

Police said Rovai filed a complaint but said no one was named as an assailant, said Sugar Land spokesman Doug Adolph.


What this story doesn't say is that it apparently took Rovai two trips to the Sugar Land PD to get the complaint filed. Fort Bend Now has the story from her first try, while the Muse, Juanita and Juanita again have some background. This one ought to be fun to sort out.

San Antonio's best blog

Congratulations to The Jeffersonian for being named the Best Local Blog in San Antonio. He's quite right about the blossoming of the blog scene in the Alamo City recently, something for which I'm very pleased to see. Being recognized as the top dog in that pile is an accomplishment to be proud of. Well done, dude.

And as long as I'm passing along the kudos, how about a round of applause for MeMo for her nomination as Best Media-Affiliated Entertainment Blog in the 2006 EPpy Awards. Nicely done, Kyrie. Now try not to spill any smoothies on your acceptance speech.

April 22, 2006
Strayhorn revisits constitutionality of the TTRC plan

Remember how the issue of whether or not the Texas Tax Reform Commission plan was an unconstitutional income tax or not was settled by an opinion from AG Greg Abbott? Well, maybe it's not so settled. Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn says that isn't good enough, and she may have a point.


Attorney General Greg Abbott's office earlier this week put out a letter saying Perry's plan did not appear to be an income tax as defined by the constitution.

Strayhorn said that letter was inadequate because it was written by Abbott's first assistant, Barry McBee, and was not signed as an official opinion by the attorney general.

She formally requested an official opinion from Abbott, a legal process that could take 180 days.

The key legal question is whether a tax on the income of a partnership such as a law firm could count as a tax on the income of the individual partners.

McBee, in the letter for Abbott, said it would only become an income tax if it was on the net profit of the partnership. Strayhorn general counsel Timothy Mashburn said a court could interpret the constitution differently, nullifying the tax without a popular vote.


The Statesman is a bit more specific on the letter:

Earlier this week, Abbott's first assistant, Barry McBee, said in a letter that lawmakers never intended to restrict taxation on businesses, only on individuals.

The letter stressed that he could not give "blanket assurances," but that he believed that a tax on a partnership - rather than a partner's share of that partnership income - would not require a public referendum.


Doesn't sound quite so unequivocal to me. The Morning News has more details, including the action that Strayhorn could take if she's not satisfied.

"I am waving the red flag," she said. "I believe Governor Perry's margins tax is an income tax."

The comptroller, an independent candidate for governor against Mr. Perry, denied playing politics, though the governor's camp said she was.

"I do not want to put the integrity of our state's finances at risk," she said.

Mrs. Strayhorn's statement carries no legal weight, and the question would ultimately have to be decided by the courts. She could, however, decline to declare that the bills keep the state budget in balance, and that would invalidate the tax plan.

[...]

On Monday, a top assistant to Attorney General Greg Abbott, Barry McBee, said in an advisory letter to Deirdre Delisi, Mr. Perry's chief of staff, that he doesn't think the governor's business tax requires such a referendum. He said it treats partnerships as separate from the individuals involved in them and taxes gross receipts, not the net income mentioned in the Bullock amendment.

Mrs. Strayhorn dismissed the letter as "staffer to staffer communications." She wrote Mr. Abbott requesting a formal legal opinion.

A spokeswoman for the attorney general said: "The comptroller's position fails to provide any new, meaningful legal analysis."

Mrs. Strayhorn declined to say whether she would refuse to certify the tax bills if Mr. Abbott had not supplied a formal opinion by the time bills cross her desk. The comptroller's certification is required before the bills can take effect.

"I am going to do what we believe I am required to do," she said.


I think we can safely say that a non-certification by Strayhorn would count as another all-hell-breaks-loose scenario. Bear in mind, Strayhorn has done this sort of thing before, though she reversed course pretty quickly in that case. I don't doubt for a minute that she might take this step, and neither should you. What happens after that is anybody's guess.

Oh, and for those of you who enjoy a little recreational conspiracy theorizing, chew on this.


First Assistant Attorney General Barry McBee, who wrote the letter largely embracing the governor's tax plan, is Perry's former chief of staff.

Knock me over with a feather, I tell you. Seriously, can it hurt for AG Abbott to sign a letter himself? We all know that the final say is with the courts, after all. Instead of having his spokesperson dodge the question, Abbott could take all the wind out of Strayhorn's sails by speaking up officially. I don't see why that should be an issue.

On a side note, the Express News points out that what we've got so far is not quite what we were promised.


The business tax plan working its way through the Legislature is billed as mild but broad-based, but it contains special breaks for a few lucky businesses - favors that will cost the state more than $1.5 billion a year in revenue.

Most of the exemptions and deductions originated with the blue-ribbon commission that created the plan, but lawmakers have added their own.

The loopholes resemble "a big piece of Swiss cheese," said one Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee, which approved the plan Thursday.

In a bill due to hit the House floor Monday, retailers and restaurants would be taxed at one-half a percent of gross annual receipts, not the 1 percent that would hit other businesses.

Doctors convinced lawmakers to grant them a tax deduction for serving Medicaid and Medicare patients, part of their so-called "charity work" though they receive government reimbursement for such cases.

Oil and gas companies would be able to deduct the cost of certain expenses, like drilling.

Small businesses whose gross receipts are less than $300,000 a year would be exempt from the tax. So would "passive investment" firms, which invest in other businesses without managing them - a break that would save them, and cost the state, $800 million a year, according to Texas comptroller's office estimates.

"It's a little bothersome to me because this was originally sold as a broad-based business tax where everyone would pay just a little," said Rep. John Smithee of Amarillo. "Once you start letting somebody out or cutting their tax, everybody wants the same thing. You go from every man paying just a little to every man out for himself."


Gosh. Where have I heard those concerns before? Link via the Chris Bell blog, who ties the loopholes back to his call for ethics reform to be added to the special session agenda.

Finally, Vince examines the debate-restricting provisions more closely, and tallies up the Yea and Nay votes for each. That Statesman story I linked above answers your questions about Rep. Rose, by the way.


Rose said passing the tax bills quickly will allow the Legislature to turn to pay raises and insurance stipends for teachers, among other measures.

"We're here to lower property taxes," Rose said. "The quicker we do that, the sooner we can work on education reforms."


Nice to know one person still has faith. We'll know soon enough if it's misguided or not.

It's not just H-GAC

I was going to make this an add-on to my earlier post on the Perry executive order for naming crisis managers for catastrophe situations, but for future reference I figured making a separate entry would be better: Turns out it's not just H-GAC that failed to comply with Governor Perry's deadline or had problems with his edict.


Of the five regional "councils of government" along the Gulf of Mexico, only two met Perry's deadline in naming a single commander to coordinate disaster response efforts.

Other regional councils, including the San Antonio-based Alamo Area Council of Governments and the South Texas State Planning Region in Laredo, also missed Thursday's deadline.

The councils were unable to agree on having just one person take charge during a disaster, including who would direct mass evacuations during hurricanes.

Mayors and county judges across Texas expressed concern that Perry's plan wasn't feasible for every region of the state, saying some areas had more municipalities than others and some local leaders were reluctant to yield control to a single person.

[...]

"We've been going over this for a month and it hasn't worked out yet," said John Buckner, executive director of the Coastal Bend Council of Governments.

Buckner said a meeting with all of the mayors and county judges in the Coastal Bend area has been scheduled for next week to tackle the issue again.

"We're going to sit down and come to terms with reality," he said. "I can see (Perry's) point, though. When you have chaos reigning, you don't want a bunch of guys running around."

Meanwhile, the Alamo Area Council of Governments also plans to meet April 28 to determine how to respond to Perry's order.

Al J. Notzon III said he has alerted the governor's office that the region wouldn't meet Thursday's deadline.

"As long as we are working toward it, they said they would not enforce the actual date on that," Notzon said.

"The main thing is that the system has to work," said Bandera County Judge Richard Evans, the council's chairman of the board. "That is what everybody wants. We have everything under control. But this is government, it takes a little time."


I'll be interested to see what they come up with. It would not shock me at all if other councils arrive at a similar decision as the Houston-Galveston Area Council did.

A new twist in the DeLay resignation saga

The Friday Chron story on the latest entrants and non-entrants into the CD22 mix includes this update on how the selection process is going.


Fort Bend County GOP Chairman Eric Thode wants to poll Republican voters to see if there's a consensus on who should carry the GOP standard, since the nominee won't be decided by popular vote.

[...]

Thode said he plans to send out a sample ballot next week to anyone in Fort Bend County who has voted in the last three Republican primaries. It will contain the names of the most frequently mentioned contenders for the nomination, and request anonymous responses that Thode hopes will gauge which prospective candidate has the most support.

"Anything we can do to open it up to more participation, to get a better feel for what the actual Republican electorate would like to see, is hugely beneficial," he said.

Harris County Republican Party Chair Jerry Woodfill said he thinks precinct chairs are capable of picking a nominee without the help of a survey.

"These folks are so involved. They clearly have the pulse of their precincts," Woodfill said. "If anyone is in touch with the electorate, it's the precinct chairs, because they are in touch with the party. They are going to choose the individual who shares their values on the issues. In this case, it will be the most conservative individual."


Chris Elam has the email describing the survey, the timing of which he calls "more than a bit strange" (I'll get to why in a moment), and a suggestion for how this should be done, if at all. Note the comment threads, by the way. I believe we can count this as evidence of my hypothesized Republican unity problem.

What makes all of this weirder, and serves as the reason why Elam questioned the timing of this mailing, is that not only has DeLay not actually resigned, or announced a date for his resignation, but that he may not resign at all.


Noting there are "many moving parts" to the replacement procedure, outgoing county GOP Chairman Eric Thode emphasized that no portion of the procedure has been put in place yet. "There is neither a resignation nor a withdrawal from the ballot."

[...]

"Just announcing your intention to do these things doesn't necessarily mean that you will," Thode said.

Also, Thode said the theory has been put forth that, if DeLay becomes ineligible to run on the ballot because he moves to Virginia, he might not have to resign from Congress. Instead, DeLay could theoretically serve out the remainder of his term, ending the need for a special election.


Got that? We should all know better by now than to think that DeLay ever means what he says. And note that it's the same Eric Thode pointing out that nothing official has gotten underway yet because of DeLay's continued occupation of the seat.

And just to throw one more curveball at you, DeLay himself has a suggestion for how to handle the replacemant process: A special election. No, really.

Machinations aside, I'm more than happy to see DeLay stay in Congress through the end of the term. As long as he's there, he'll continue to serve as the best symbol of what's wrong with that institution and why it needs a change. No rush, Tom! Take your time!

Political theaterwise, this has been pretty entertaining, hasn't it? And who knows how many more acts to the story there may be. Links and further commentary via Greg in TX22 and the Muse of Sugar Land.

Disaster commander to be picked

We have a resolution for the disagreement between Governor Perry and the Houston-Galveston Area Council over his demand for a single commander for catastrophe situations (see here and here for background): A committee chair will be chosen to serve as the single commander.


After mayors and county judges within the local, 13-county region chose a 15-member committee this week to manage disasters, instead of a picking a single commander, Perry said the plan was "fraught with danger."

But since then, Harris County Judge Robert Eckels and others have met with Perry to assure him that local officials will select an individual for the state to work with during hurricanes.

[...]

According to Perry's executive order issued last month, all 150 mayors and county judges in the greater Houston region were to vote upon a single commander for all catastrophes.

This proved an especially difficult process because of lingering divides in the wake of the Hurricane Rita evacuation, in which some coastal county officials were upset that residents were bogged down in Harris County traffic.

[...]

Eckels said the new coordinating committee will likely meet for the first time next week. At that time, Eckels said, he expects it will choose a chair or commander for hurricane evacuations.

For now, this promise of a single commander appears to have mollified Perry.

"Having a single person leading an evacuation was a key recommendation of the task force, and the region is also working toward naming a single incident commander specifically for hurricane evacuations," said Rachael Novier, a spokeswoman for Perry.

"The governor said last week he believes that is a wise decision. It makes sense when the region must act quickly and lives are on the line."


Seems like the logical answer. I'm still not sure that this is a workable solution, given that the intent is to handle all kinds of disasters and potential evacuation scenarios, not just hurricanes. That's a pretty broad mandate, and it's not clear to me that it should be a job for just one person, whether or not there's a committee behind that person. That said, we all know that the focus of this thing is hurricanes, and there's no reason why it can't be effective for that. This interview with Dennis Storemski, Houston's representative on the Unified Area Coordinating Committee, gives an idea of what it's all about.

This is really nothing more than a coordinating entity. This group is not intended to tell individual mayors or county judges how to handle their responses during a crisis. Its purpose is to coordinate resources. If there are multiple demands on resources, you get a group of people together who will try to prioritize who needs them most.

We'll see how it works. Meanwhile, in a sign that everyone has hurricanes on their minds about now, there's this. Make of it what you will.

April 21, 2006
The latest Resmussen result

Since I promised something to say on the latest Rasmussen poll of the Texas Governor's race, let me go ahead and say a few words. First, the numbers:


Rick Perry (R) 40%
Chris Bell (D) 17%
Carole Keeton Strayhorn 19%
Kinky Friedman 15%

First, this really ought to be the final nail in the only-Strayhorn-can-win coffin. It was the pre-primary Rasmussen poll from February, where Strayhorn had 31% to Perry's 40, that gave any credence to that notion - the two other polls since her independent-candidacy announcement both had Bell ahead of her. Now that she's faded back to the pack in the one poll that was favorable to her, what else is there to support this idea? If you're a Democrat and you've been supporting Strayhorn because you think she can beat Perry, you've been duped. Come back home, all is forgiven.

Having said that, it would be nice to see Bell move a little closer to Perry. He is up four from the ridiculous result that Rasmussen had for February, but he's got a long way to go. I still have reservations about Rasmussen's sampling models, and I still think everyone is overestimating Kinky Friedman, but until Bell can get within about ten points of Perry or so, the best that can be said right now is that Rick Perry is weak, but he's not yet vulnerable.

Finally, I'd really like to see some other pollsters take a shot at this, if for no better reason than to see if my griping about Rasmussen is fact-based or not. C'mon, people, this is a unique election here. Don't you want to know what's going on? Fire up those autodialers and start asking already.

Business tax passess committee, teacher pay raise next?

Yesterday, more of the TTRC tax plan passed through Ways and Means, and more noise was made on behalf of actually doing something about school finance this session.


"There's a lot of support for a teacher pay raise, both Republicans and Democrats. The leadership wants a pay raise," said House Appropriations Committee Chairman Jim Pitts, R-Waxahachie.

The House Ways and Means Committee approved a new business tax pushed by Gov. Rick Perry to replace the often-avoided corporate franchise tax and to help pay for a property tax cut. The committee also decided to phase in an increase in the cigarette tax, bumping it up 55 cents per pack later this year and 25 cents in each of the following two years until the tax reaches $1.46 per pack.

[...]

The committee also approved a change in sales-tax reporting for people who buy used cars. Under that change, instead of paying a tax on the sale price, someone who buys a used car would have to pay sales taxes based on at least 80 percent of the "blue book" value of the car.

[...]

The existence of a surplus has fueled calls from some lawmakers and educators to increase school spending, which Perry's tax swap does not do. More than a dozen education groups on Thursday called on the Legislature to use the special session to improve schools.

"If not now, when?" asked Mike Motheral, legislative chairman of the Texas Association of School Administrators. "We are here before you today gravely concerned about the future of the children of Texas."

Texas State Teachers Association President Donna New Haschke said a pay raise of less than $3,000 per year would not be "respectable."

Senate Bill 1, a $1.5 billion education reform package sponsored by Sen. Florence Shapiro, R-Plano, would provide a $2,000 across-the-board pay raise for teachers. Educators could set aside a portion of the raise for health insurance.

The bill also would provide incentive pay for teachers and money for dropout prevention programs.

"This is an opportunity for us . . . to truly put ourselves in a position to accomplish good things for our students," Shapiro told the committee.

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst trumpeted Shapiro's bill Thursday, saying that as legislators focus on taxes, "we cannot forget our children."

Pitts' legislation in the House would provide a $2,000 pay raise for Texas teachers this fall and an additional raise the following year.

House Democrats also called Thursday for the Legislature to increase teacher salaries to the national average.


That call and many other items that I mentioned yesterday are discussed in greater detail here.

On Thursday, Democrats filed legislation to spend billions on public education, including across-the-board teacher pay raises, reducing class sizes, updating textbooks and providing health insurance to all school personnel. They're readying for a battle to ensure their proposals are debated and voted on. And they are touting property tax cuts they say would treat every homeowner - rich or poor - the same.

[...]

"We can't obstruct anything," Dunnam said of the Democratic minority. "If the Democrats prevail on an issue, we are providing a better policy for the constituents."

Their legislation, House Bill 83 by Rep. Scott Hochberg, D-Houston, provided no specific numbers on how much should be spent on schools. But at a news conference Thursday, several House Democrats complained that the $3 billion cut from public education in 2003 has now grown to $4.35 billion. They are suggesting using some of the $8.2 billion surplus to restore those cuts.

Hochberg said the details would be filled in once the size of the Perry tax plan is established.


The argument here is simple, and one that I think will have appeal if it can get heard: In 2003, we cut billions of dollars from education funding because we had a large budget deficit. In 2006, we have a large budget surplus. We should use some of that surplus to restore the cuts we were forced to make in 2003. It's only fair, and it's the right thing to do.

Instead of just cutting the school tax rates, as the Perry plan does, Hochberg's bill would triple the homestead exemption (the amount of a home's value exempt from being taxed) from $15,000 to $45,000. He said that would give every homeowner a $450 tax break in any school district taxing at the state's current maximum rate, though the savings would be less once tax rates go down.

The Democrats said Thursday that they believe the House would approve Hochberg's measure if Craddick gives them a vote. They noted that a similar bill by Hochberg last year received 80 votes.

Voting to spend money on public education might be good politics for the dozen or so House members locked in competitive races this November.

"There is no statewide tax revolt," said Democratic consultant Jeff Crosby. "Just cutting taxes ain't going to cut it. If you are in a competitive district, you better be for bringing more money to your local schools whether you are a Democrat or Republican." There's another dilemma for voting for Perry's tax plan: It proposes to cut property taxes, but it also raises taxes on businesses and professionals, some for the first time.

Even with business groups, doctors and the trial lawyers association endorsing Perry's plan, Dunnam noted, "Nobody ever got beat voting against a tax bill."


The horse-trading, back-scratching, and double-crossing all begins in full on Monday. Hopefully by then the hosts and hostesses of last night's special session kickoff party (which I sadly had to miss) will have recovered from their hangovers and will do the liveblogging thing so the rest of us can watch the train wreck legislative excitement in real time.

UPDATE: Not seeing any news coverage yet, but the following press release from the Texas Democratic Party says to me that the Republicans succeeded in stifling any actual debate on these bills:


(Austin, TX)--Today, House Speaker Tom Craddick and House Republicans passed sham “procedural” rules designed to prevent House Members from using any of the state’s surplus or new Perry tax revenue to improve our children’s schools. The rule essentially denies lawmakers the opportunity to offer amendments, or proposals of any type, that would use these funds for Texas schools.

“Tom Craddick and his Republican foot soldiers are working against Texas children,” said Texas Democratic Party Communications Director Amber Moon. “By voting for the rule that slams the school doors shut and denies even the discussion of much-needed school funding, Republicans have shown they care more about election year politics than providing our children textbooks.”

“The people of Texas have demanded that the legislature invest in our schools in addition to addressing property taxes, but Republicans are holding our kids hostage for a tax bill that doesn’t put one dime into their future,” said Moon. “Students are reading from out-of-date textbooks in over-crowded classrooms. Yet Republicans are refusing to even discuss the pressing needs of our neighborhood schools.”

Democrats in the House have developed the “Hochberg Plan,” which will improve public education and deliver much-needed funding to Texas schools in addition to providing meaningful property tax relief for homeowners. The Democratic plan would reduce class sizes, fund new facilities and technology, raise teacher pay and restore health insurance benefits for all educational employees. However, Speaker Craddick has refused to even allow a vote on the common-sense Democratic plan even though the House passed a similar plan with bipartisan plan last August.

“Democrats in the House are working hard to respond to the demands of all Texans and fix our schools. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership has turned a deaf ear to the message sent by voters in this year’s primary elections--that they are ready for a change from the failed Republican leaders who have turned their backs on the kids, teachers and parents in our state,” Moon concluded.


Typical. Depressing, but typical. Let's hope there's a hell of a fight over all this on Monday. Remember those attack ads I mentioned yesterday, where members were held accountable for procedural votes? Eddie has them all posted, along with the memo. Check it out.

UPDATE: Rep. Pena says that the Republicans' actions so far have stalled the TTRC plan's momentum. Stay tuned.

On the signature trail

On the one hand: Friedman, Strayhorn think past 45,540


The gubernatorial campaigns of independent candidates Kinky Friedman and Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn said Monday they are on track to getting the 45,540 signatures they need to get onto the general election ballot.

But neither campaign was willing to say how many signatures have been gathered so far.

Strayhorn campaign manager Brad McClellan said the campaign is trying to gather far more signatures than needed to make sure there are enough valid signatures. He said he didn't want to release the number because that might make supporters believe they can slack off on the petition drive.

"We want to keep getting them. We don't want to take the wind out of the sails," McClellan said. "We're in very good shape. But we're going to keep getting them."

[...]

Friedman campaign manager Dean Barkley said the staff is not telling him how many signatures have been gathered for fear he will tell people.

"All I know is the people in charge of the petition drive all have smiles on their faces," Barkley said.


Well, maybe not so much in El Paso.

"It's proven to be more difficult than I thought it was going to be," said Staci Engman, a substitute teacher leading signature gathering in El Paso for independent gubernatorial candidate Kinky Friedman.

About halfway to the petition deadline, campaign novices heading ballot petition efforts in El Paso for Friedman and fellow independent gubernatorial candidate and Texas Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn say the going has been slow with little support from campaign leaders in Austin. Both campaigns said they plan to make it out to El Paso, but probably not until the end of the signature-gathering period.

"We're as frustrated as (Engman) is because we can't get to every pocket of Texas that we'd like to reach," said Friedman spokeswoman Laura Stromberg.

[...]

"People forget West of the Pecos people live out here and vote here and even care," said Jay Ann Rucker, a retired teacher volunteering with the Strayhorn campaign. "They really don't pay attention to us."

Rucker said she's been able to gather about 60 signatures so far. The Strayhorn campaign's goal for signatures from El Paso: 10,000.

Finding places with large audiences from which to gather signatures has been one of the toughest hurdles, Engman and Rucker agreed.

Rucker said she's mostly concentrating on teacher group meetings, reaching out to educators who might be attracted to the public education agenda of Strayhorn, a former teacher and school board member.

That strategy has met with limited success, though, because many teachers voted in local contested primary races and can't sign a petition.


Sorry, but after reading all those stories about crappy primary turnout and What It All Means yada yada yada, I have to say this: Bwah hah hah!

Ahem. Sorry about that.


Engman said she and the 30 or so volunteers helping her are getting close to the Friedman campaign's signature goal from El Paso. Already, Engman said, they have gathered about one-quarter of the 2,000 signatures they are shooting for.

"People are excited to have an outsider, but a very credible outsider, who wants to come in and help improve things and do it with integrity," she said.

A visit from the comedian, author and singer would make her job a lot easier, Engman said. Many El Pasoans she has approached for signatures know Friedman's name, but they don't know his platform, why he wants to be governor or what he has planned for the state, she said.


In that regard, madam, they are exactly like everybody else in Texas.

On the other hand, if Friedman does visit, may I suggest that his campaign screen this movie for the locals? Perhaps a singalong of the theme song to go with it, too.

There's more, but you get the idea. Thanks to Victoria Kos for the link.

The myth of the easy commute

Christof takes on one of my pet peeves: the idea that there's some outlying suburban development that has a genuinely easy commute into Houston's downtown and will continue to have one in the future. Just go read it, and think of it when you see one of those annoying billboards advertising such a place.

Analysis of Supplemental Appropriations Bills

If a title like that doesn't get your heart beating...well, okay, I'd understand. The fine folks at the CPPP have been very busy pumping out the position papers and analyses lately. This one, on Senate Bills 13 and 16, is a little dense, but this is what they're doing in Austin these days, so if you want to know what's going on, start reading. The executive summary:


Senate Bills 13 and 16 are scheduled for a public hearing by the Senate Finance Committee on Monday, April 24, at 9:30 a.m. Even though the governor's call for the third special session is still limited to "school district property tax relief; modifying the franchise tax, motor vehicle sales and use tax, and tobacco product taxes, and an appropriation to the Texas Education Agency," SB 13, 16, and other bills filed by legislators make it clear that other important matters will have to be resolved before the end of the 2006-07 budget cycle.

The supplemental funding and other items in SB 13 and 16 as introduced call for $2.5 billion (a 4% increase) in General Revenue to cover already-purchased school textbooks, fund social services restorations and shortfalls, undo budget-balancing maneuvers used in 2003 and 2005, and address Hurricane Katrina and Rita costs. While the cost of supplemental items may seem large, adding them to the state budget would still have Texas spending less General Revenue per resident than it did in 2002, before devastating budget cuts were made. This Policy Page provides more information about the supplemental needs, all of which should be given a higher priority than the unaffordably large, unsustainable property tax reductions that some state officials are proposing in the special session.


There you have it. Happy reading!

Fixing CHIP

Let me join Greg in saying that this Chron editorial hits the nail on the head.


WITH almost one-fourth of Texans lacking health insurance, it's hard to see how things could get much worse. But they are, at alarming speed: Rule changes and ill-managed privatization have removed coverage from thousands of children. Since Dec. 1, CHIP - insurance for the working poor - has lost 30,000 children from its rolls. State officials must stop the bleeding, now.

Health and Human Services Commissioner Albert Hawkins Tuesday announced a $3 million campaign to help parents access CHIP, a federal and state program for the children of the working poor. They certainly need help. Since private outsourcing behemoth Accenture LLP took over CHIP screening this winter, social service agencies have been swamped with complaints from wrongly disenrolled families. Parents have called 10 and 15 times, been assured by Accenture that their children were insured - then gotten letters cutting those same children off, said Barbara Best of the Children's Defense Fund.

Also disturbing, Health and Human Services spokeswoman Gail Randall said they've heard little of these problems. Said Best, "I have been regularly sending these stories to HHSC so they can be solved. I haven't heard anything." Nonprofits in Fort Worth, Austin and other cities have been sending similar reports.

[...]

Even if Accenture had done its job correctly, children would still be falling from CHIP in droves, with no alternative awaiting them. That's because the Texas Legislature wanted it that way. To reduce CHIP's budget, lawmakers voted for asset tests and more paperwork as a way of lowering the number of children eligible to be insured.

[...]

The time has come for triage. The Health and Human Services Commission should not allow one more disenrollment until CHIP functions again. After four and a half disastrous months, HHSC must also reconsider its contract with Accenture. An outside investigation of the firm's poor performance must be the first step.

Finally, the governor and Legislature should admit that their choices have put an unacceptable number of Texas children in harm's way - and pointlessly forced taxpayers to pay those children's ER bills. If necessary, and it might not be, legislators should pull money from Texas' budget surplus to cover the same number of children CHIP insured before. Lawmakers must admit that the red tape they created was counterproductive and restore the simpler, more inclusive CHIP guidelines of 2003. Insurance is a good investment for anyone. For low-income kids, the cheap insurance CHIP offers should be non-negotiable.


The only quibble I have is with the "If necessary" in the last paragraph. I think it pretty clearly is necessary, and it's a moral failure to talk about property tax cuts when something like two percent of the current budget surplus would restore CHIP funding to pre-2003 levels and bring home the federal matching funds we've been needlessly turning away as well. I really don't see anything controversial about this.

For those who may be eligible to enroll in CHIP, the CPPP has a useful guideline for wading through the paperwork. Check it out.

Helping small businesses during rail construction

Tory notes a simple solution for small business owners afraid of losing revenue during the construction of the Universities light rail line, courtesy of Tempe, Arizona. The city there has put aside funds to make low-interest loans available to affected businesses. Seems like a pretty reasonable option to me. Check it out.