LATEST FROM OTHER COUNTIES

Why Texans Need to Vote NO on Prop. 4

By Michele Samuelson | 10/05/09 | 11:52 PM EDT | 3 Comments

I've held back on this because I wanted to give readers a chance to read the initial analysis of Proposition 4. There are a lot of arguments out there in favor of it (the Fort Worth Star-Telegram has their endorsement here). I think you need to know, Prop. 4 is a bad idea.

 
One of the "elephant in the room" problems in Texas is higher education funding. The legislature "deregulated" tuition in 2003 to help balance the budget, and since then, Texas' public universities have become less affordable for many, if not most, Texas families. The Texas Tomorrow Fund has ceased to exist as a direct result of tuition dereg, and the Texas Tuition Promise Fund will eventually collapse as well. Since tuition deregulation, tuition has skyrocketed, increasing by an average of 86% since 2003 (and there's a great breakdown of where that money has gone, at least in the case of UT-Austin, here). The result of all of this is a higher demand for financial aid, most of which is backed by state or federal tax dollars. Meanwhile, the university systems pay lobbyists to head to Austin and Washington to beg for more money.
 
Now, the "Tier 2" schools in Texas (specifically UT-Arlington, UT-Dallas, the University of North Texas, the University of Houston (home of the tuition funds scandal I discussed in May), Texas Tech, UT-El Paso and UT-San Antonio) want to receive special funding to attract federal research grants for their professors.
 
At the expense, of course, of classroom education.
 
 
Proponents of Prop 4 like to talk about how many "Tier 1" research universities there are in California (11) and New York (8) as opposed to Texas (3 - UT, Texas A&M, and Rice). What they don't tell you is that the graduates of those schools in California and New York come to Texas - because we have an excellent business climate (have you seen the list of Fortune 500 companies headquartered in Texas? We have more than New York).
 
 
Tier 1 university is not a term that means "higher enrollment rate" or "higher graduation rate." It does not mean affordable tuition. UT, A&M, and Rice are three of the most expensive schools in the state. UT and A&M are certainly the most expensive public schools in Texas. Time was, a student who was smart enough for those schools but who couldn't afford or didn't want to go into debt to attend them went to one of the listed "Tier 2" schools. There used to be something approaching legitimate competition. Becoming more "prestigious" research campuses might be the perfect excuse to continue raising tuition. After all, you're getting a better education from a Tier 1 school, right?
 
 
Wrong. It isn't about education - it's about marketing. What is your university known for, and how easily do prospective employers recognize your alma mater? That's where these Tier 2 schools are rooting their argument for more money (Texas Tech in particular, if the Star-Telegram's statement about Sen. Duncan is to be believed). Nothing is there to stop them from raising tuition at the same time - in fact, some use "being competitive" as an excuse to raise tuition, like UT-Arlington's student body president argues in this 2008 article, or like the Texas Tech student leadership approved of earlier this year.
 
 
And tuition hikes are vicious things. Higher tuition cost = higher demand for financial aid = higher taxes to pay for federal loans, federal grants, etc. It isn't just tuition, either - universities like "Tier 2" and Prop 4 beneficiary UT-Arlington get around tuition caps and other such accountability measures with increases in student fees. The point is, the more it costs to get a post-secondary education, the more the government is going to step in to subsidize it.
 
 
The really insidious thing about Prop. 4 is that it creates a whole new constitutional fund, but doesn't create a mechanism for sunset. Which means the initial money will eventually run out, and the universities will come back and ask for more. The people of Texas have one chance to vote on this: now. If this is approved, the legislature will have to address reauthorizing funds down the road - and we all know that the university lobby will make sure this is funded in perpetuity, with YOUR tax dollars.
 
The Star-Telegram says "the money is available. We should use it." That is a rotten argument. The money is available now, sure. But what about after 2011? What about in 2031? When government spends money one time, it rarely (read: NEVER) stops spending.
 
 
Make no mistake - until we address university funding and accountability, no time will be a good time to create new funds. We need to say NO to Prop. 4.
 

Print | Email | Share
 
Denton County Astroturf: Officials still clamoring for transportation taxes

By Michele Samuelson | 08/20/09 | 12:45 PM EDT | 0 Comments

I really wish government officials would be intellectually honest with constituents and call tax increases by their name. We've got Obama and his ilk referring to their government-option health care initiative as a "public" option, and tax-and-spenders in the Legislature, cities, and counties in Texas clamoring for a "local" option tax increase. The "local" option is dead, thank goodness - or is it?

Tax-and-spenders in the city of Denton have decided to keep pushing for the "local option" tax increase transportation bill, which failed during the 81st session despite best efforts of taxpayer-funded lobbyists and power-hungry legislators.

Unsurprisingly, it is not a citizen's group that wants this tax increase at all, but Denton Mayor Pro Tem Pete Kemp. Clearly, the lesson wasn't driven home when the citizens of Denton County joined protests against the legislation during session. Hopefully it will come back to bite officials during elections.

For more on why the TLOTA bill was a bad idea last session, and why it's still a bad idea, check out the following:

Lutz: Astroturf, anyone?
(Lone Star Report)

Sullivan: Paying Lobbyists to Oppose You, Again (Empower Texans)

The High Cost of High-Speed Rail by Randal O'Toole, August 2009 (TPPF)

The Effect of Higher Gas Taxes on Texas Motorists by The Honorable Talmadge Heflin and James Quintero, May 2009 (TPPF)

House member challenges local option petition
(Lone Star Report)

The Existing Local Option for Transportation
(Heflin, Quintero: TPPF)

Testimony on Local Option Transportation Legislation
(Heflin, Quintero, Keener: TPPF)

Senators who stood up for fiscal responsibility


Print | Email | Share
 
The 81st Legislature in pictures

By Michele Samuelson | 06/02/09 | 6:45 PM EDT | 0 Comments

Pics in this post were taken by myself and members of my household throughout the legislative session. I think they capture the theme quite well. Please excuse the blurriness in some - cell phone cameras only do so much.

Snakes! Provided by the Sweetwater Chamber of Commerce in honor of the annual Rattlesnake Round-Up.

 



Two lobbyists having a lightsaber duel.


Citizens lined up to testify on SB 362, the voter identification legislation, before the Committee of the Whole Senate in March.

Passing HCR 16, changing the official state dinosaur. Yeah.

 

A citizen holding up the Republic of Texas flag at Rep. Creighton's press conference on HCR 50, the sovereignty/10th Amendment legislation, in early April.


Governor Perry addressing the RightOnline blogger conference on May 23.


The first-ever rally for tax increases (the TLOTA) at the State Capitol, held on May 29. In this photo are Senator Wendy Davis (D-Fort Worth), Senator Kirk Watson (D-Austin), Senator John Carona (R-Dallas), Rep. Vicki Truitt (R-Fort Worth) and Rep. Mike Villareal (D-San Antonio). The "Texas Not Taxes" sign is being held up behind Sen. Carona by Americans for Prosperity's Peggy Venable - about 30 grassroots activists showed up to be "anti-protesters" against the taxes proposed by Carona and Truitt.

 



Dead legislation! This is a stack of dead bills the morning of sine die on June 1. The black spot you see is an eyepatch, put there in honor of Rep. Rene Oliviera (D-Brownsville).



Mourning some dead legislation on sine die.


The Texas State Capitol on sine die, June 1, 2009. Beautiful day in Austin!!


Print | Email | Share
 
Special legislative session, or will TXDOT and TDI shut down "sine die?"

By Michele Samuelson | 06/02/09 | 2:20 PM EDT | 0 Comments

After 2005's Summer of the Special Session(s), I think it's perfectly natural for Texas political junkies to take about a five minute breather when the gavel falls on sine die before they begin wondering if the governor is going to call everyone back to address some major issue.

The chaos and headaches that came out of the 80th legislative session in 2007 were enough to hold us over for two years, and the last couple of weeks certainly seem like plenty to hold us now until 2011. Unfortunately, the Democrat shenanigans in the House and the mudslinging from a certain Dallas senator wreaked enough havoc to leave some serious unfinished business behind.

Now, Governor Perry said several times in the last few weeks that the one thing he would be ready to call a special session over would be windstorm insurance. I was at an event over Memorial Day weekend at the Capitol where he said that very thing to a room full of bloggers and live-Tweeting activists. The legislature passed a windstorm insurance bill, and it seems like that crisis is averted.

But the legislature adjourned sine die without addressing the sunset problem. Five state agencies hang in the balance because legislation enabling them to continue was left to die on the vine. TXDOT, for instance, died at midnight Sunday night, when the bill was postponed in a wrangle over the conference committee report - it was likely to die regardless, with Carona's filibuster threat, and Pickett saved us all from that nightmare. There was still a chance to save TXDOT, the Texas Department of Insurance, and the others with HB 1569, the "safety net" bill that would allow the agencies to continue operating and undergo the sunset process again in 2011. But that bill was, for lack of a better word, chubbed into oblivion on Sunday night as well, by Rep. David Leibowitz (D-San Antonio).

A last-minute Hail Mary by Rep. Jim Pitts (R-Waxahachie), HCR 291, passed the House but didn't get traction in the Senate. HCR 291 was a resolution that would extend through 2011 the agencies that would receive federal stimulus funds - meaning TXDOT and TDI. Despite the overwhelming support in the House, there were serious questions raised about the constitutionality and legality of HCR 291 - the 29 members who voted against it were very concerned about this, and a point of order was raised and overruled. After passing the resolution, the House did some more ceremonial singing and dancing before adjourning sine die just after 6pm.

Meanwhile, the Senate was immediately concerned about HCR 291. They recessed for the better part of two hours, each of the caucuses met twice to consider what to do, and ultimately the entire Senate rejected HCR 291 before adjourning around 9pm (the resolution was not even brought up for a vote). The post-sine die response to all of this from newly-elected President Pro Tem of the Senate Sen. Steve Ogden (R-Bryan) was that the blame for the Legislature's failure to save TXDOT, TDI, and the others lay with the House. Speaker Straus brushed off that criticism.

While most politicos and political junkies are now either literally or figuratively sleeping off the 140 day wrangle, the questions have already been asked.

1 - Are the Texas Dept. of Transportation, and the Texas Dept. of Insurance, and the other agencies, effectively dead? - More or less. There are things that can be done, including an executive order from the Governor, to keep these agencies alive. The way sunset works: an agency undergoes sunset review during the interim prior to the session before the official sunset date set for that agency. The Sunset Review Board gives recommendations, and a bill is crafted and filed to fine-tune the agency. The legislature debates and votes on that legislation. The agency is then either shut down or continued. If the bill does not pass, for whatever reason, the agency is then subjected to a systematic shut-down. The date of sunset for TXDOT, TDI, and two others is Sept. 1, 2010. This means that unless something is done, beginning Sept. 1 of 2009 (this year), the agencies' services and duties will be assigned to other agencies, and they will operate on "skeleton crews" through the final sunset date. The Texas Racing Commission has an extra year; their sunset date is Sept. 1, 2011.

2 - Will there be a special session? According to Governor Perry in this morning's press conference, maybe and maybe not. As stated above, the windstorm insurance legislation that primarily concerned the governor passed and is being sent to his desk. Scuttlebutt at the Capitol yesterday held that if there is a special, Gov. Perry will wait until after the veto period (the 20 days after sine die) and the July 4 holiday to call it. Speaker Straus has stated that he doesn't think there's a need for a special. Lt. Gov. Dewhurst is mum so far. But the final authority lies with the governor, and so far, he's playing it down. I'll have another post on a special session and what it could mean for Gov. Perry later today.

3 - Whose fault was this, really? Lots of fingers to point, and I'll probably miss a few, but the first one has to aim at Sen. Carona. The TXDOT sunset bill, HB 300, passed the Senate with his local option tax increase attached, and the House was adamantly opposed to the tax from the get-go (they let the House version die without a floor debate prior to the chubbing, grassroots efforts and the chubbing killed the Senate version while it was in the House, and the House voted to instruct the conference committee on HB 300 to reject the tax provision). TXDOT died because of DFW rail and taxpayer-funded lobbying efforts to raise taxes unnecessarily. The Texas Dept. of Insurance bill died thanks to chubbing - it's only hope was the safety net bill. And finally, Rep. David Leibowitz, and doubtless some of his Dem colleagues in the House, get a portion of the blame as well. Killing the safety net bill ensured the final death of those agencies and if we get a special session, that's the ultimate reason why.

Honestly, the chubbing was the big killer and big problem of the final days of the 81st session. Time-wasting in the House in an effort to prevent legitimate debate on voter identification legislation (read: Democrats trying to avoid taking a vote on a popular issue that would have cost them seats) also prevented a good deal of important legislation from passing, both good and bad. If the legislature is called back, if Governor Perry overlooks the possible political backlash from a special session to address these major issues, it won't be difficult to figure out who is to blame, but it also won't matter. The work has to get done, whatever that looks like, and the fact remains that neither chamber came out of this smelling like spring bluebonnets.


Print | Email | Share
 
Texas Cardinal DiNardo Blasts Notre Dame for Obama Visit

By Dr. Richard Swier | 03/29/09 | 12:24 PM EDT | 0 Comments

Courtesy of Damien Thompson from the UK Telegraph

Do you want to know what a really first-class Cardinal sounds like? Then read an amazing letter by Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston, which elegantly explains both the Pope's actions over the SSPX and why Barack Obama should not be honoured by Notre Dame University. (Hat tip: the splendid Fr Z.)
 
Excerpt from Cardinal DiNardo's letter: 
 

...I want to venture a comment on the recently released statement of the University of Notre Dame; that statement noted that the President has accepted an invitation to give the Commencement Address this year as well as receive an Honorary Law Degree. The news release then outlines the fact that a number of other Presidents have given the Commencement Address at Notre Dame and have thus highlighted, in effect, the university’s importance. I find the invitation very disappointing. Though I can understand the desire by a university to have the prestige of a commencement address by the President of the United States, the fundamental moral issue of the inestimable worth of the human person from conception to natural death is a principle that soaks all our lives as Catholics, and all our efforts at formation, especially education at Catholic places of higher learning. The President has made clear by word and deed that he will promote abortion and will remove even those limited sanctions that control this act of violence against the human person. 

The Bishops of the United States published a document a few years ago asking all Catholic universities to avoid giving a platform or an award to those politicians or public figures who promote the taking of unborn human life. Even given the dignity of Office of the President, this offer is still providing a platform and an award for a public figure who has been candid on his pro-abortion views. Particularly troubling is the Honorary Law Degree since it recognizes that the person is a "Teacher," in this case of the Law. I think that this decision requires charitable but vigorous critique.


Print | Email | Share
 
Planned Parenthood gives Hillary its highest honor

By Dr. Richard Swier | 03/28/09 | 12:28 PM EDT | 1 Comment

Houston, TX (LifeNews .com) -- The Planned Parenthood Federation of America presented pro-abortion Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with its highest honor, the Margaret Sanger award, at a Friday night gala in Houston.

It is in Houston that PP is constructing the nation's largest abortion facility, a multi-story building.

The award, named after the Planned Parenthood founder who some say held racist views against African-Americans, honors Clinton for her advocacy of "women's health and rights throughout her public service career."

However, while in Chlna, Clinton avoided bring up human rights issues, including the country's forced-abortion policy.

Texas Right to Life led a coalition of pro-life advocates in a peaceful prayer vigil at the convention center.

It said PP claims to support women but does a disservice to them. It opposed a state ultrasound bill, even though it already does ultrasound before abortions," TRTL said. "Parenthood wants to keep women in the dark about the lives of their unborn babies. When women learn the truth about the life within their womb, they choose life. When women choose life, Planned Parenthood loses money," the group continued.

So who is Margaret Sanger?

In the United States socialist writer Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood and the mother of the abortion movement, called for a radical eugenics approach as early as the first years of the 20th century. She wrote of the need for "a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring. It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them. Herein lies the key of civilization."


Print | Email | Share
 

1