![]() |
![]() |
Burnt Orange ReportNews, Politics, and Fun From Deep in the Heart of Texas |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
June 06, 2005Hutch Urges Special SessionBy Andrew DobbsFrom Quorum Report:
I'd put more of KBH's quotes in, but it sounds nauseatingly like a campaign ad. "Texas is the greatest state in America and I want us to be the example of how to do things right. I want other states to look to us to be the state that has the creativity and the innovation" blah blah blah. Still, the Hutch-o-meter must have swung back up to the upper 90s by now... June 02, 2005Democrats Vindicated By Legislative SessionBy Andrew DobbsMost of the stories about the end of the legislative session have rightfully focused on the GOP's inability to accomplish any of their main goals this session. But a much more important topic has been ignored-- the success of Democrats in stopping much of the worst legislation and their unprecedented unity. In 2003 a handful of Democrats stood by Craddick's side the entire session. Not only did they support tort reform, health care cuts and robbing education and social services for cash, they even stood behind him as he gerrymandered Democrats out of Congress. The session was a bleak one as Republicans failed at next to nothing and steamrolled our party with the help of a handful of turncoats. But something changed after that session. New leadership entered the Texas Democratic Party and these leaders promised that things would never be this way again. Several Craddick D's-- most notably Ron Wilson and Glen O. Lewis-- faced primary challengers that were actually endorsed by the Chairman of the TDP. People were stunned that a party chair would actually endorse in primary races. Chairman Soechting, who was roundly criticized at the time of his election on this blog for being "more of the same", shocked and awed true Democrats all over the state by standing up for core Democratic values. Wilson, Lewis, and at least three other Craddick Ds were defeated in the primaries. The lesson was made REAL quick-- you screw us over, you aren't going to be in office any more. One of the biggest unreported stories from this session is Sylvester Turner's return to the fold. Battered in the Houston Mayor's race in part because of his sell out of the Party and facing threats of primary challenges this time around, Craddick's top Democrat (now that Wilson is gone) has changed tunes. He gave among the most impassioned speeches against the school finance plan, the tax plan and other efforts to hurt the people of Texas. While he wasn't 100%, he improved this session. Vilma Luna started out the session in her old ways and just the hint of a primary battle scared her straight. Al Edwards is still problematic, and there are some mossback Dems who haven't accounted for their sorry votes, but on the most important issues of the session-- school finance, tax reform and health care, Democrats were united. The united progressive front helped Democrats kill some bad bills this session. Democratic Senators blocked many of the worst proposals from making it into law, and a concerted effort to expose the school finance and tax plans for what they really were (unfunded mandates crushed on the brow of Texas schools and the largest tax increase in Texas history) made it hard for Republicans to vote for the bills. As it stands Texas was let down by this session, but they can thank Texas Democrats for the fact that they won't be saddled with a host of other terrible fates. Republicans failed Texas this session, but the only thing standing between working Texans and an even worse disaster were Democratic lawmakers united and fired up by strong Democratic leadership. If we can keep this united, this passionate and this disciplined 2006 could be an exciting year for Democrats across this state. May 31, 2005Republican Legislators Unable to Say the "P" WordBy Andrew DobbsIt seems that since the early 1990s a certain word has left the lips of politicians across this country-- the word "poor". There was a time when poor folks knew that there was a concerted effort to improve their lives. A shifting focus to the middle class has hurt that effort nationally, but thankfully Texas Democrats continue to stand up for the poor (a necessity in one of the poorest states in the entire country). Unfortunately, Republicans have continued to use the poor as their personal ATM-- robbing them of their needed services and their tax dollars in order to pay for their boondoggles for the rich. The DMN spells out a few examples of last minute attacks on the poor.
So 350,000 poor Texans will see an 11% increase in their electric bills, and poor and middle class Texans whose kids depended on CHIP for health care before 2003 who were promised restorations in that session's cuts were disappointed, despite bipartisan efforts to fix to fix the program. Texans who expected a cut in their telephone bill two years ago will have to wait at least two more years to get that relief. Now, whenever Democrats vote for or support a smaller tax cut or a delay of a tax cut than what Republicans want the Republicans call it a "tax increase." Following their own logic, Republicans have supported a tax increase for the last two sessions running. Poor folks were the punching bag for frustrated Republicans all session. When they needed cash to make up for their proposed (and ultimately, failed) school finance/tax restructuring plan, they raised taxes on poor and middle class Texans. The less you made, the larger the tax increase so the Republican plan would have raised taxes a staggering 5-6%. And poor schools would have seen less money under the "equity" proposals than wealthy schools-- not just in dollars, but in percentage increase. This session could have been a disaster for the poor, but since the Republicans failed miserably in virtually all of their efforts they ended up coming out just beaten and not bludgeoned to death. The fact of the matter is that the best reason I can find to be a Democrat is that when the cards are down we are for poor folks and the other guys are for rich folks. Being for rich folks means you would rather help out people who don't need any help than help out people who are struggling just to survive. And when you help out poor folks it helps out middle class folks (who are typically one disaster away from abject poverty) and even rich folks (whose prosperity is undermined by the instability a large underclass brings with it). This session proved once and for all that the Democrats are the party of working people and the Republicans the party of the idle rich. Republicans are in trouble now because no one likes a bully and that is exactly what they presented themselves as to the poor here in Texas. Editorial Boards Across the State Hammer the LegeBy Byron LaMastersSince I enjoyed adding my snarky asides in compiling the news reports about the end of the "Do Nothing" Texas legislature below, let's take a look at what the newspaper editorial boards had to say: I'll start with my favorite newspaper in the state, the conservative Dallas Morning News:
The DMN states the obvious. Republicans are great when they can hyperventilate about taxes, and throw red meat to their base when they are in the minority. When they actually have to govern, Republicans are immediately torn. Do they continue to cater to their base? Or do they actually solve the state's problems? Republicans in the Texas lege clearly took the former (although the budget was a 19% increase from 2003). Most interestingly, the DMN calls for the Texas Supreme Court to take over the matter. Apparently, they feel that the GOP-legislature is so inept and incompetent that the only solution is judicial activism. Wow. The San Antonio Express-News has similar thoughts:
The Austin American Statesmen:
My favorite editorial? The Fort Worth Star-Telegram. I normally do not post full-length articles, but this editorial deserves to be read in its entirety. Enjoy:
The "Do Nothing" LegislatureBy Byron LaMastersIt's certainly ironic that in the first session following an election where Republicans achieved complete power with majorities in Congress, the state Senate, the State House, and a lock on all Texas Constitutional offices - they are unable to accomplish much of anything. Newspapers across the state report... The Austin American Statesman:
The failure of a school finance plan is the failure of one party, and one party alone. We can thank Tom Craddick for that.
The Dallas Morning News:
The San Antonio Express-News covers the GOP spin:
What a load of crap. Sen. Wentworth, for one, isn't buying it:
And finally, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram:
Tarrant County Republican Chair clarifies the priorities of of the "conservative movement":
Ok, I think I get it. Gays = NO! Abortion = NO! KIDS, uhmmm = NO WAY! At least someone is honest about the priorities of the "conservative movement". As long as the gays and abortionists are stopped, who cares about the kids? End of Session NotesBy Byron LaMastersState Rep. Aaron Pena (D) has some end of session notes over at his blog. Of interest...
In other news, via email, the Texas Legislative Black Caucus elected new officers: Chair -- Representative Senfronia Thompson, Houston No DINO's on this list... A special thanks for the leadership of the outgoing chair Garnet Coleman, and he certainly leaves the caucus in good hands with Senfronia Thompson. May 29, 2005Our Dumb LegislatureBy Jim DallasMajikthise picks up an interesting note:
Well, yes, everything is self-identical. Nonetheless, though, this is one of those situations where a court would probably just sort of laugh and point to the clear legislative intent, viz., spiting them danged homos. And we all know there's nothing wrong or controversial with that! Meanwhile, Our Dumb LegislatureTM continues to kill progress dead on the education front. As Kuff notes, school finance and tax reform is pretty much over with for this session, which ends in, oh, something like 48 hours. Would thirty more days help? Need we ask?
Now here's a radical idea folks: why don't we just follow the advice of crazy hippies like Ivan Illich (rest in peace), and make school optional? After all, our fine role models in the House and Senate are sending a strong message to children that education really isn't that important anyways. Update: Turns out my day-counting skills were off. I thought the Session ended on Tuesday. Kuff says it's practically already over. The House Web site says they've recessed for lunch and will start anew at 2:30; but nonetheless, they've got to finish by midnight. Unless I slept longer than I thought, I was wrong. May 28, 2005Gay Foster Care Ban Stripped From CPS BillBy Byron LaMastersThe Houston Chronicle reports:
With this victory, it's never too early to look ahead towards 2006. The Austin Chronicle reports:
Some interesting gossip here. This is the first time I've heard that Kyle Janek is considering a run for U.S. Senate. In terms of targeting, Wong and Baxter are in the obvious first tier of most any Democratic target list. Nixon, Talton and Grusendorf are a bit further down the list (and Chisum a lot further down the list), but I would certainly like to see all of the above be challenged by a strong, well-funded Democrat. May 27, 2005May 25, 2005State House Freshmen of the Year NamedBy Byron LaMastersAaron Pena breaks the news:
May 24, 2005Vouchers Fail in the State House, Did Leininger Offer Bribes?By Byron LaMastersGood news (emphasis mine):
It's not as bad as Bo Pilgrim handing out $10,000 checks on the state senate floor, but Leninger is one of the top GOP donors in Texas, and I would not be surprised if bribes or primary challenge threats were made in the Speaker's office to state house members. Update: You can watch the debate from yesterday on the house floor here. The Quorum Report has much more including time markers for several of the important moments. More at PinkDome and Aaron Pena's blog (with a Star Wars twist) as well. May 21, 2005HJR 6 Debate on the Senate FloorBy Byron LaMastersWatch it live, here. Update: In the Pink Texas reports that Madla switched sides to allow a vote to bring up the bill. Update 1:50 PM: Rules are suspended by a 21-8 vote. Update 2:26 PM: These debates sometimes get amusing. On floor amendement 8, Sen. Van de Putte proposed and withdrew a "some sex" amendment. Update 2:28 PM: HJR 6 adopted by a 21-8 vote. The 21 votes were all Republicans except for Brimer who was absent along with Democratic Senators Armbrister, Lucio and Madla. The other 8 Democratic Senators voted against HRJ 6. More: In the Pink Texas has some more on the HJR 6 Senate sponsor Todd Staples. More: The amendment will be put to a statewide vote on November 8, 2005. BOR will keep you updated with the latest on the amendment and the NO on HJR 6 campaign. And More: LGRL Statement:
May 19, 2005HJR 6 Senate HearingsBy Byron LaMastersOur pink friends, In the Pink Texas and Pink Dome are liveblogging the HJR 6 Senate (gay marriage amendment) hearing. Earlier today, however, there was good news for opponents of the amendment. The Austin American Statesman legislature blog reports:
My guess is that the 11 senators are all senate Democrats sans Armbrister. I'll update when I know for sure. May 18, 2005Parental Consent Bill Passes State SenateBy Byron LaMastersJust when we thought it was dead, the parental consent bill has passed both the House and Senate in the past couple of days. This afternoon, it passed the Senate by a vote of 24-5:
May 16, 2005More on HD 143By Byron LaMastersMarc Campos will be working for another candidate - Laura Salinas. Meanwhile, Kuff brings news that a stealth Republican candidate may run as a Democrat in the district. I posted yesterday on another Democratic candidate, Ana Hernandez. May 15, 2005Ana Hernandez to Run for the Seat of Joe MorenoBy Byron LaMastersIt's tough to think about how the special election for Joe Moreno's seat will play out, but it is a safe Democratic district, and I hope that a progressive Democrat will continue Joe Moreno's legacy. One candidate, supported by State Rep. Jessica Farrar (D-Houston) is Ana Hernandez. Here is an email forwarded to me by a labor leader:
Cheerleaders to remain BootyliciousBy Karl-Thomas MusselmanNews 8 Austin reports that Rep. Al Edwards (D-Can't Handle It) Bill to ban sexually suggestive high school routines has dead ended in the Senate.
I'm glad that the Education Committee has more important things to do. Apparently the Hate Affairs Committee does not. May 12, 2005Parental Consent Bill TabledBy Byron LaMastersToday was a rare good day in the Texas House for supporters of a woman's right to choose. House Democrats successfully stalled HB 1212 past the deadline for filing new bills with two sustained Points of Order this week. The Houston Chronicle reports:
Essentially, the King bill would increase the burden of proof on the victim of child abuse, rape, incest, etc. I thought that Republicans were for victim's rights - that is unless it relates to abortion. Update: Kuff also brings the good news of the defeat of another bad bill - HB 1167. May 10, 2005This Headline Cannot Contain My Boiling RageBy Jim DallasFront page, H-Chron, today:
Sen. Steve Ogden (R-Bryan) tries to spin this as the result of cigarette taxes; apparently working families spend more of their income on ciggies than the wealthy. That's probably true - a pack-a-day habit is a pack-a-day habit, regardless of whether you're making $20,000 a year or $200,000. Of course, sin taxes, like all consumption taxes, tend to be regressive in this way (you know, because a three-meal-a-day habit is a three-meal-a-day habit regardless of income). Moreover, sin taxes tend to fall on those pesky things that the powerful folks in the Lege simply don't approve of. Did the bill drafters sincerely believe that cutting slightly regressive property taxes and shifting the burden to highly regressive consumption taxes would not have this sort of distributional impact? Granted, this effect is ameliorated ever-so-slightly by the new business tax (although the bottom line, as noted above, is still negative for four out of five Texans), and the Senate bill is better than the House bill. But it enrages me greatly that the Lege will use smoke-and-mirrors legislation to dress up a tax hike for working families while refusing to hold a simple up-or-down vote on an income tax bill which would be a real tax cut for most Texans. Update: The always calm, cool, and collected (mostly cool) Kuff has his thoughts here. May 09, 2005Overkill?By Jim DallasThere's often more than a few reasons to oppose a bill; but a reader directs us to 93 reasons why HB 1167, a bill intended to reform fair housing laws, is bad for Texas. After skimming the text and reading the committee report, I can see why Reps. Talton (yes, that Talton), Wong, et al. think they're doing a favor for Texans. Like many statutes, this one is very long and somewhat technical, and I don't have the time or expertise to fully understand it. But on balance those 93 reasons TLIHIS has argued seem awfully compelling. What seems most worrisome to me are the amendments that appear to eliminate reporting that assists in enforcement of civil rights and fair housing laws (the committee report says the reporting is "unnecessary", but given the history of housing segregation in Texas and elsewhere, I'd say that might be a bit of a cavalier attitude.) Having briefly encountered the federal Fair Housing Act in reading for a class, I do know that these laws can be somewhat of a pain in the neck for landlords, but I'd rather the laws get enforced than not, wouldn't you? May 06, 2005Joe Moreno RememberedBy Byron LaMastersMany Texans of both parties are remembering the life of State Rep. Joe Moreno who was killed last night in a car accident. Here are some of things that have been written today about Joe Moreno. Texas Democratic Party Chair Charles Soechting:
Harris County Democratic Party:
Governor Rick Perry:
Speaker Tom Craddick:
Chris Bell:
State Rep. Aaron Pena:
Houston political consultant Marc Campos:
More reaction over at Dos Centavos, Rio Grande Valley Politics, Greg's Opinion, The Red State and Off the Kuff. Update: More in the Houston Chronicle. May 03, 2005(Don't) Shake your Buns Bill- HB 1476By Karl-Thomas MusselmanPink Dome is going to liveblog the debate on the Anti-Booty Bill now being debated on the House floor. Yes, this is a real bill. Legislators think it is a priority to ban overly 'suggestive' dancing squads at your hometown football games. Live Stream from House website here. HB 1476 The full text is here but here is the "money".
Update- Initial vote ties 64-64. Much groaning. Motion by McCall to not reduce ANY of the debate to text passes. Motion for roll call. Final vote... 65-56. IT PASSED?!?! I'm waiting on the registry of votes but from listening to debate, my latest unfavorite Rep., Patrick Rose voted FOR this bill. Let's hope this dies a painful death in the Senate and the House gets ridiculed on every News Station "legit or illegit" to quote Rep. Dukes from earlier debate on the bill. HB1706 DeadBy Karl-Thomas MusselmanIn a move that will make Kuff happy, 11 of our 12 Democratic Senators signed a pre-emptive letter saying "no thanks" to the Republican's move to require more layers of red tape to our ability to cast votes in this state. Latino's for Texas gives us the heads up...
I'm going to take a wild guess and say that Armbrister was the one who didn't sign it. April 28, 2005Anti-Gay Foster Parents Amendment not DeadBy Karl-Thomas MusselmanWe thought it was over. We were told and assured that it would die in committee. But this is Texas and things are of course, always too good to be true. Speaker Craddick announced his 5 appointments to the conference committee for SB 6, the Child Protective Services (CPS) Reform bill: Rep. Suzanna Gratia Hupp (R- Lampasas), Rep. Carlos Uresti (D-San Antonio), Rep. John Davis (R-Houston), Rep. Robert Talton (Bigot-Pasadena), and Rep. Toby Goodman (R-Arlington). As the Statesman Blog says:
So now it comes down to Republicans v. Republicans. The author of the Bill v. the author of the amendment. But don't let the conference committee stop Talton's idiocy. From another Statesman article...
What, Gov. Good-Hair not towing the Right Wing Faction's "Gays-Are-The-Antichrist" line? What's he thinking, that it's a shitty piece of legislation (duh)? And for all you in the Austin area, here's how Central Texas House members voted on the amendment to ban gay, lesbian and bisexual people from being foster parents. The amendment passed the House last week by a vote of 81-58. In favor: (meaning wrong) Reps. Dan Gattis, R-Georgetown; Patrick Rose, D-Dripping Springs; Mike Krusee, R-Williamson County; Todd Baxter, R-Austin. Against: (meaning right) Reps. Dawnna Dukes, D-Austin; Terry Keel, R-Austin; Elliott Naishtat, D-Austin; Eddie Rodriguez, D-Austin; and Mark Strama, D-Austin. Texas Campaign Finance Likely DeadBy Karl-Thomas MusselmanI was in the process of writing a story about Democrats attempt to bypass committee and bring the campaign finance reform bill to the House floor for a vote (considering there are 92 co-sponsors) but the Statesman online has a breaking news note (no story yet) that the issue may now be dead. BREAKING NEWS I mean, seriously, the legislature has much more important things to be doing like protecting the State from already illegal gay marriages. Update: Statesman article is now up.
Craddick- 1 Lighter Side Of The Lege: Wild HogsBy Vince LeibowitzI wasn't aware that the Texas Department of Agriculture had asked the Legislature for a half-million dollar appropriation to study--of all things--the state's wild hog population. My problem is that I can't decide whether or not the appropriation is as stupiud as it really sounds or not. The appropriation request came to my attention via an AP story which happens to mention Van Zandt County, my home county. Our little hamlet made news back in 2003-04 when our County Commissioners actually placed a $7 bounty on each wild hog killed. You had merely to bring a complete set of wild hog ears to the County Extension Office to collect your bounty. And, in a time of tight budgets, the county shelled out about $14,000 for about 2,000 killed feral hogs. I don't dispute that wild (or feral) hogs are a problem. I've seen first-hand the damage they can do to land and crops. What I'm wondering is why it will take $500,000 to study how to control the population? Can't the state look at some other population control studies for other incorigible species and perhaps transfer some of those methods to the wild hogs, maybe to the tune of $100,000 or $250,000 instead of half a million? If you have no idea what a "feral hog," is or what they do and are wondering why in the heck the state would appropriate one red cent for such a project, read a selection from the AP article:
Aside from arming farmers with AK-47s, or embarking on a study for a better sausage recipe, as our often humerous (and very qualified) County Extension Agent suggusts, what exactly will the Department of Agriculture do with $500,000 to study the wild hog population? I'm wondering if some of the farmers who have problems with the feral hogs are scratching their head about the half-million appropriation request, too. After all, I'd venture to say individual farmers could give the DOA some innovative ideas on feral hog population control--for free. For some reason, thinking about a group of people in the nearby city of Grand Saline who "capture" feral cats and have them neutered/spayed and then release them back to the dumpsters from whence they came, I had a fleeting thought of Texas Department of Agriculture agents wandering the swampy bottoms of Van Zandt County with tranqualizer darts and hog contraceptives. Is there such a thing as a hog contraceptive? Maybe they could use tracking devices and follow the feral hogs using spy satellites and then call ahead and warn farmers: "They're coming your way! Get the AK!" Since a mind is a terrible thing to waste, I'll stop wasting mine on potential solutions for the Department of Agriculture. After all, they are the ones getting $500,000 to come up with a plan. Vince Leibowitz is County Chairman of the Democratic Party of Van Zandt County and 3rd Vice President of the Texas Democratic County Chair's Association. April 27, 2005Speedy ResponseBy Karl-Thomas MusselmanMy hometown Representative (now that I'm registered to vote back in Fredericksburg again) is Carter Casteel, a Republican woman who comes from a four county, 80% Republican district. The other day when I was in the gallery watching the HJR 6 debate on the floor, it was interesting to see how active she was being the second termer that she is (in addition to having a very snappy Blue dress and a House website picture that reminds me of Bea Arthur from Golden Girls which makes her that much more cool). That aside, I was quite suprised when she voted against Amendment 60 to SB6, the Child Protective Services Bill amendment that would have banned gay foster parents and spent $8 million dollars of Texans money to create an investigative unit in CPS to root out all those homo-sech-u-als attempting to parents children already abused or displaced by their heterosexual parents. Though there was some crossover in voting on the amendment, I certainly didn't expect my hometown rep, from one of the most conservative districts in Texas to stand against the rest of her party on this one. Makes me that much more sad that Rep. Patrick Rose whose district neighbors Casteel's, went ahead and voted for it. I can understand Casteel voting for HJR 6. I can maybe understand Rose doing so though I'm still very upset on that one. But when Casteel can vote against the Talton-gay-families-are-evil amendent, and Rose votes for it, it makes me really upset. Thank goodness it's coming off in committee. Below the fold is the e-mail I sent Rep. Casteel. I received a response an hour later to my suprise, even if it was short, it's nice to know that some Reps can get back to their constituants directly without form letters. Representative Casteel, I wanted to thank you for what I see as a couragous vote against --- That statement in SB 6 should come out in Conference Committee. It April 26, 2005Garnet Coleman Takes on Al Edwards for Bigoted RemarksBy Byron LaMastersGood for Garnet Coleman. Coleman wrote this letter to the editor in response to Al Edwards remark that homosexuality is a "social ill". Here is the letter via email and Greg's Opinion:
As the chair of a minority caucus in a minority party, it would probably be easier for Coleman to just let Edwards's comments slide. With that in mind, I'm very pleased to see Coleman do the right thing, and call out his colleague on his bigoted remark. April 25, 2005Blogging HJR 6By Byron LaMastersIn the Pink Texas is liveblogging HJR 6 with the appropriate title of "Smear the Queer". Pink Dome is also liveblogging the HJR 6 debate. For the short version, just read the preview. I've been watching some of the debate on television, and I believe that Karl-Thomas is watching the debate, and hopefully he'll have some thoughts later. Update: Some of my favorite parts of the debate - Senfronia Thompson wants her 40 acres and a mule, while Rafael Anchia, Garnett Coleman and Paul Moreno in particular have been very articulate against the bill today. Robert Talton just looks like the face of evil - oh wait, he is, and Warren Chisum just appears like a misguided grandfather. I'll update later with the vote count. Update: Final vote, 102-29 with a bunch of abstentions (100 votes needed for passage). Update: Another post from In the Pink Texas and lots more at Pink Dome. Statements from Senfronia Thompson and Garnett Coleman here and via their comments is the actual vote. Also in Pink Dome comments is a statement by Al Edwards that I also recall hearing. The statement by Edwards was something along the lines of how he took offense that a "social ill" (GLBT Texans) was being compared to other civil rights issues. Fortunately, most of Edwards's African-American and Hispanic colleagues felt differently as expressed by their votes. Jump to the extended entry for the roll call vote. AYES - 102 NAYS - 29 PRESENT-NOT-VOTING - 5 ABSENT - 14 A Defense of Sylvester TurnerBy Byron LaMastersPolitical consultant Marc Campos (who includes Sylvester Turner on his client list) offers a defense of Sylvester Turner:
I get the point here, but the very reason that many Democrats said "get lost" when Turner asked for their help in his mayoral bid is due to his serving in the Craddick leadership team. I've been tough on Sylvester Turner because of his work with the Craddick leadership, and his frequent bizarre explainations for certain votes and decisions. I will continue to be critical of Sylvester Turner and other Democrats when I see fit, but as anyone who knows me or reads this blog, would certainly know that I always save my harshest wrath for GOPers like Tom DeLay. HJR 6 On the FloorBy Karl-Thomas MusselmanThe UDems GLBT Committee is up at the Capitol right now before HJR 6 starts to be debated (live feed here). Apparently the DPS in the gallery would not allow us to wear our "Hate is not a Texas Value" shirts, because it would be a "distraction" even though our plans are to remain silent and say nothing. So they are talking to some of the Reps and Senators officers to work around it since it's a rule that we havn't heard of before (and I can only imagine be related to the raucus redistricting crowds). April 23, 2005More Legislator-Bloggers at Lone Star RisingBy Byron LaMastersWe noted earlier that State Rep. Aaron Pena started Lone Star Rising as a group blog for state representatives to post. Earlier there were posts from State Reps. Joe Deshotel, Veronica Gonzales and Raphael Anchia. Since then, Reps. Richard Raymond, Joaquin Castro, Mark Strama - and in the spirit of bipartisanship, Republican Bryan Hughes - have joined the world of legislator-bloggers. Who's next? Sen. Nelson Opposes Talton AmendmentBy Byron LaMastersThe LGRL blog found this Fort Worth Star Telegram article:
So, which will win out? Republicans desire to limit lawsuits, or their desire to hate gay people? That's a tough one... April 22, 2005Sylvester Turner to Switch Parties?By Byron LaMastersSave Texas Reps speculates. I wonder what the GOP is offering him? Update: Via email and Greg's Opinion is a statement on Turner's FOX News appearance:
April 21, 2005Sylvester Turner on His Vote for Talton's AmendmentBy Byron LaMastersSounds like a lame excuse to me:
The vote was cast mistakenly while Turner was gone? Why did Turner not have his voting machine locked? Who cast the vote by accident? Will Sylvester Turner tell us this, or should we demand an investigation? I know that Sylvester Turner is often a sell-out to the Craddick leadership team, but I would at least hope that he wouldn't let Craddick's team cast his vote for him when he is away. However, Turner's explaination can only lead me to this conclusion (unless there was some legitimate malfunction of the voting machine). I'm really getting tired of one excuse after another coming from the office of Sylvester Turner. So, who's next? What's Al Edwards's excuse? What's Richard Raymond's excuse? What about you, Tracy King? As Houston Democrats points out, the Texas Democratic Party Platform is very clear on this issue. This May Explain some things about the LegeBy Byron LaMastersEver wonder why our lege is so screwed up? Quotes from the speaker such as this one may explain a few things (kudos to the Austin Chronicle for the catch):
Well, Kinky's at least right one thing (see below). These folks (Craddick, et al.) not only don't know a damn about education, they don't know a damn about government. April 20, 2005Votes on the Gay Foster Parent Vote BanBy Byron LaMastersPink Dome points to LGRL's list of the recorded vote on the gay foster parent ban in the Texas House on Tuesday. I've made a list of those who voted against party lines. First, here are the Democrats who voted for the Talton amendment: Dems (yes): Robby Cook, Al Edwards, David Farabee, Stephen Frost, Tracy King, Jim McReynolds, Richard Raymond, Patrick Rose, Sylvester Turner. Cook, Frost and McReynolds represent conservative east Texas districts, so that explains their vote. Rose and Farabee also represent conservative districts, but I'm still pissed off at them regardless. Finally, Al Edwards, Tracy King, Richard Raymond and Sylvester Turner represent safe Democratic districts. Raymond is considering a run for congress, and many progressives who would be likely support him in a primary might think twice about it after this vote. On the Republican side, there were three votes of interest. Todd Baxter (R-Austin), who voted for the Dignity for All Students amendment, voted against the GLBT comunity on this one. Rep. Jim Keffer (R-Eastland) voted, well, you know. Also, Dan Branch (R-Highland Park), who represents much of the Oak Lawn area voted for the amendment. GOP (no): Ray Allen, Carter Casteel, Peggy Hamric, Will Hartnett, Bob Hunter, Delwin Jones, Terry Keel, Brian McCall, Martha Wong. Some surprises here. Martha Wong does something right, but the damage has already been done. Keel and McCall are relative moderates on some issues, so their votes don't surprise me, but the other votes here do. Also, it should be noted that Pete Laney voted the right way. He represents a conservative west Texas district, so this was a difficult vote for him, and should be applauded for doing the right thing. Gay Foster Parent Ban Passes State HouseBy Byron LaMastersBecause of Rep. Robert Talton (R-Pasadena)'s amendment to the Child Protective Services reform bill, your tax dollars will be spend on witch hunts seeking to learn the sexual orientation of potential foster parents (should the amendment pass the senate). The Austin American Statesman reports:
More at the Pink Dome. Also, read the statement from the LGRL. Also blogged at Appalachia Alumni Association and 100 Monkeys Typing. Anyone that doubts that this is anything but a witch-hunt that would spend millions of state funds to determine the sexual orientation of potential foster parents need not read any further than the text of the amendment (PDF File):
What the heck is a reasonable investigation?? Talk about screwed up priorities... we have a foster care crisis in this state, and Republicans would rather spend millions of dollars to take kids out of loving homes, and investigate the personal lives of law-abiding adults. April 18, 2005HJR 6 UpdateBy Karl-Thomas MusselmanThe chair of our UDems GLBT Caucus has gotten some info back from our State Senators on where they stand on HJR 6, recently passed out of the Hate Affairs Committee in the House 6-1. Since the House is not the best ground to fight this battle, here is the scoop on the Senate Democrats. All of these were in the Senate for the 2003 vote on the Texas Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Three Democrats supported that, Madla, Lucio and Armbrister (a co-sponsor!). We need 11 of the 12 to kill the bill. Senator Gonzalo Barrientos: (D-14th District) Does not support this legislation. Senator Rodney G. Ellis: (D- 13th District) Will not form an opinion until bills comes to the senate, but voted against the 2003 Defense of Marriage Act and is committed to the civil rights of all people regardless of lifestyle. Senator Mario Gallegos: (D-6th District) Firmly against the policy and a major force against the legislation. Senator Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa (D-20th District) "The Senator believes these kinds of amendments are ridiculous and has consistly voted against them." Senator Royce West (D-23rd District) Awaiting a return call (but likely against the bill) Senator John Whitmire (D-15th District) "Has not specifically spoken to the Senator on this legislations but is against discrimination and will vote with his gay and lesbian constiuates. Senator Leticia Van de Putte (D-26th District) Awaiting a call from legislative aid, but "the senator is for equal rights." Senator Eliot Shapleigh (D-29th District) "The Senator is against theses amendments" Senator Judith Zaffirini (D-21st District) Awaiting a return call from her office. (but likly to vote against it) Senator Ken Armbrister (D-18th District) No opinion, very impatient with me, was in a hurry to get me off the phone. Senator Eddie Lucio, Jr. (D-27th District) No opinion, listening to all sides. Senator Frank Madla (D-19th District) "Doesn't feel that this is appropriate to be in the state constitution" So it looks like we have 8 of the 11 votes needed to kill these bills in the Senate. I anticipate that the two Senators that I'm awaiting return calls from (that didn't state any opinion) will vote our way as well. That gives us 10 of 11. Something else that might be a snag, a few of the offices that I called said that the office doesn't consider House bill until they leave the house and enter the Senate. Lucio is the swing vote. Armbrister is pretty much a DINO. Lucio will probably do the right thing if preasured enough. So we are going to see if we can find a delegation of UT students from Brownsville / south TX and request a meeting with Lucio on the matter. I'll keep you updated. April 15, 2005Not a good day for the GovernorBy Jim DallasThe Houston Chronicle picks up the story (referred to me by this diarist) about Perry's chief of staff attempting to influence the House Speaker vote, which might have been illegal. ("Tons more entertaining than watching The Apprentice" - Pink Dome). Meanwhile, the Statesman reports that Rep. Yvonne Davis sent the tax-cap bill, already beleaguered and effectively gutted, back to Finally, In the Pink Texas directs us to the Dallas Morning News, where we love that Comrade Senator Hutchison has over $7.2 million in her campaign kitty. Almost as much as Kommissar Perry himself, and despite efforts by Republican money-folks to blackball the Hillary-hugger. To be fair, the Perry camp can't raise money until the end of the legislative session (which makes it a tad wink easier for Comrade Kay to catch up.) Still... $7.2 million buys a lot of green slime. April 13, 2005Hit me baby one more timeBy Jim DallasThe Associated Press reports on the House debate over the revenue-capping bill, and I think puts things a little too optimistically for it. In part because, while the AP mentions that HJR 35 (the revenue-capping constitutional amendment resolution) needed a 100-vote supermajority to pass - and failed to get 100 votes - the story neglects to mention that Rep. Bohac didn't even get a majority when push came to shove. In that sense I think the AP is moving the goal posts, so to speak. Moreover, today's story doesn't mention that the Senate ain't all that crazy about the legislation, either. I am predisposed to think that the revenue-cappers are probably going to go down in defeat. Again. It would be nice if the AP gave a little more perspective one way or the other.
April 12, 2005State House Targeting - 2006By Byron LaMastersKuff and Tejano Politico are looking at target lists for 2006 already. It's never too early to start talking, and recruiting candidates. Politico's List is a bit ambitious, however, and also leaves off some races that should be targeted. Politico says that this should be the Dem target list: State Rep. Joe Nixon, State Rep. Kent Grusendorf, State Rep. David Swinford, State Rep. Geanie Morrison, State Rep. Robert Talton, State Rep. Ray Allen, State Rep. Warren Chisum, State Rep. Tony Goolsby, State Rep. Gene Seaman, State Rep. Todd Baxter, State Rep. Martha Wong, State Rep. Bill Zedler, State Rep. Roy Blake Jr. Some of these folks such as Allen, Baxter, Nixon, Seaman and Wong ought to be at the top of any Democratic target list in 2006, but others such as Grusendorf, Morrison, Chisum and Swinford are unlikely to have a serious challenge anytime soon. Kuff elaborates on three GOP targets in Harris County for 2006 - Nixon, Talton and Wong. Nixon and Wong ought to be top priorities, whereas I think that Talton is more likely to be a multiple cycle project. Obviously, defending Hubert Vo's seat and Scott Hochberg's seat (to a lesser extent) should be Harris County Democrats priorities as well. Moving on, Travis County has Todd Baxter to go after, and Mark Strama to defend. I've always wanted to see Terry Keel challenged in a serious way, but that never seems to happen despite the fact that both Kirk Watson and John Sharp won District 47 in 2002. Travis County Democrats followed that up by defeating not one, but two Keel's last November - Patrick Keel who Rick Perry appointed judge and Thornton Keel who lost a constable race (a Democratic pick-up). In Dallas County, five seats ought to be targeted. District 102 where Harriet Miller gave Tony Goolsby a surprisingly close race in 2002 will likely see another close race in 2006. I believe that Miller is running again. District 101 is a low 40s DPI district in Mesquite that has not been challenged in several years, but I think a well-funded challenger could give Elvira Reyna a scare. District 105 out in Irving has similar Democratic performance, and it would be good to see a well funded challenge to Linda Harper-Brown. The most Democratic district in Dallas County held by a Republican is clearly HD 106 held by the ethically challenged Ray Allen. Katy Hubener received 47.4% of the vote against Allen in 2004. I think that there is no doubt that Allen will have another well-funded challenger in 2006. Finally, there is HD 107, an east Dallas district where Bill Keffer is the incumbent. Theresa Daniel ran a competitive race there in 2002, but Keffer was given a pass in 2004. However, I've looked at the numbers in the district, and the DPI of the district increased from 38 to 43 between 2002 and 2004. It's an uphill battle, but a well-funded Democrat could certainly make a good run in the district. I know that one candidate has announced, and there are others currently looking at the race. Over in Tarrant County, Toby Goodman and Bill Zedler are the two districts that Democrats would probably have the best luck targeting. Elsewhere, Scott Campbell's personal problems give Democrats a chance in an otherwise hopeless district and near-misses of the past couple cycles such as Roy Blake Jr., Mike "Tuffy" Hamilton and John Otto should have challenges as well. As for Gene Seaman, he had a close call in 2002, but got a pass in 2004. Andrew wrote several months ago, however, that Democrats are working to recruit a candidate to run in 2006. On the other hand, there are a good number of districts, especially in east Texas where we'll have to play defense - Stephen Frost, Mark Homer, Chuck Hopson, Jim McReynolds, and Robby Cook in addition to David Farabee, Hubert Vo, David Leibowitz and Mark Strama. Again, this is only a very early look at the 2006 cycle. Democrats will have a good opportunity to make gains in the state house, but candidates need to be recruited now, and especially in these competitive districts which I have named above. April 11, 2005Hate Affairs Committee votes on HJR 6By Karl-Thomas MusselmanThanks to the people/person over at PinkDome, we have some info on HJR 6, the Constitutional Ban on All Things Un-Holy (Gay Unions), which was voted out of the Hate Affairs Committee today 6-1 (with 2 Democrats wandering around not knowing where or when to vote I guess). As this PinkDome entry notes, Rep. Martha Wong (R-Houston Gay District) voted for it as well as Rep. Keffer (R- Gay Son that Testified in Committee). As to why and where the others were, this PinkDome entry may shed some light. But it is nice to see that Rep. Villareal (D- Missed the Committee Vote) is going to gather Demo opposition to this on the House Floor. We'd need 51 votes to kill it in the House, and even though we have what, 63 Democrats, most capitol sources will tell you that there aren't enough votes to kill it in the House, leaving the Senate (where people have been Re-Redistricted into electoral security on both sides) to be the main battleground. April 05, 2005HJR 6 Hearing Still in ProgressBy Byron LaMastersIt's 12:38 AM and the HJR 6 hearing is still in session. Check out the liveblog of it on PinkDome. Also at the LGRL Blog. More relating to Martha Wong in the Houston Voice. Update: The hearing lasted until around 2:30 AM April 04, 2005Fight HJR 6By Karl-Thomas MusselmanWant to know what you can do to fight the first proposed Texas Constitutional Gay Marriage Ban Bill, HJR 6? It had a committee hearing today starting around 2 pm. Full details located over here. April 03, 2005Ray Allen Investigated for Illegal Use of StaffBy Byron LaMastersState Rep. Ray Allen (R-Grand Prairie) is currently being investigated by Travis County prosecutors for using state-paid employees and property for personal profit. The Dallas Morning News reports:
While not illegal in of itself, it's just not smart for an elected official to hire his/her government employed staffers for their personal business. The tendency towards mistakes at best, and the temptation of illegal and unethical behavior at worst is much too great. Whether the case is the former or the latter, the public official - in this case, State Rep. Ray Allen (R-Grand Praire) has betrayed the trust of the public. As is the case, Allen should resign. I hope that the Travis County prosecutors get to the bottom of this. April 01, 2005Gene Seaman's PrioritiesBy Byron LaMastersState Rep. Gene Seaman (R-Corpus Christi) certainly has his priorities in the state house. Are they yours? Watch the ad here (warning, probably not the best thing to open up at work). Practice What you Preach issued a press release today:
March 30, 2005Keep STAR+PLUSBy Byron LaMastersIt's a good program, and some of the GOoPers in the lege want to cut it. Read Hope Morrison's post on the topic and act on the issue if you have the chance. Pink Dome adds some thoughts as well. March 29, 2005Blog on the MoveBy Karl-Thomas MusselmanRep. Aaron Pena has moved over to blogspot for his blog, since his old one on his site was a bit, unlinkable. Of course, we here at BOR hope that we might get listed in Pena's blogroll but only if there is enough space of course? Go check out the new space! ::Update:: Thanks to Kuff for informing me that I'm blind. We are listed as The Burnt Orange Report. Well, I'm proud to go to THE University of Texas, but we really are just Burnt Orange Report. We write lots of articles but we don't need one in our link. Oh, aren't you jealous of my masterful use of words! March 22, 2005Strayhorn Says HB 3 Doesn't Balance, Shapleigh and Rodriguez Push For Income TaxBy Andrew DobbsAccording to Quorum Report, Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn has reversed course and declared HB 3 to be unbalanced. She says that the cafeteria-style business tax will simply invite continued tax avoidance on the part of businesses and will result in $2.3 billion in deficits. Every year that the tax plan is in place, the deficit will go up, and the tax cut becomes a huge tax increase for everyone- not just the poor and middle class as it now stands. House Republicans (and Mike Villareal, who is singing in that chorus again) dispute her claims. So what is to be done? Well, my state rep- Eddie Rodriguez- and Senator Elliot Shapleigh of El Paso have put forward the plan they have been pushing for some time now: a state income tax. Here is the press release they put out earlier today:
Realtors aren't the most liberal group out there, in fact they tend to be pretty conservative. And landowners' groups tend to be on the GOP side of most issues. Now that these forces have joined with nonpartisan types in the form of the League of Women Voters and some liberals in the Consumer Union, a broad-based coalition is finally forming to redo Texas' taxes the right way- with an income tax. Appraisal creep is the biggest culprit in the way property taxes will simply jump back up, but the dozens of other taxes not touched by HB 3 and the significant ones raised by the bill add up quickly. Texas needs to get serious about education and serious about serving tax payers. Only an income tax will serve both interests. I'm proud to say that Eddie represented me well today. March 20, 2005Pay Raises in State GovernmentBy Byron LaMastersThis article about pay raises in state government demonstrates the silliness of the current structure.
Texas needs to join the 21st century and realize that it is not possible to run a mega-state with a part-time, underpaid legislature. We should be raising the pay of the legislature substantially, NOT the executive officers. March 18, 2005The Real Reason Al Edwards Voted for HB 3By Andrew DobbsSo when HB 3- the bill that raises taxes on every Texan making less than $100,600- came up for a vote, only one Democrat managed to vote for the bill, Houston's Al Edwards. Edwards has not given a convincing reason for his vote, claiming that he felt that his vote would give him a seat on the conference committee. Anyone familiar with Craddick et. al knows that he wouldn't seat anyone not completely committed to his goals on the committee and even if Edwards was on it, he'd be voted down 5-1 on everything. Also, the leadership hasn't said anything about this, so it seems shady. Turns out something far more ridiculous is behind the choice. From Quorum Report:
Just for comparison's sake, here's the proposed monument and here's a picture of Edwards, a few years ago. Looks pretty similar to me... Inside sources say that Edwards traded his vote for a commitment from the leadership to back this design and to put aside the money for the effort. And frankly, Dawnna Dukes isn't someone I distrust and she's not one to fight a monument to African Americans. This is bizarre, to say the least, and further proves Al Edwards' uselessness in our party. Edwards might want to watch his back, and if he doubts he can be taken out Ron Wilson might offer a few words of advice... Update: [Byron here - I second everything that Andrew says here, and wanted to add on a few links to the post]. From Greg's Opinion, here and here. On a Lighter Note...By Byron LaMastersTo venture off on to another topic aside from human vegtables and abortion, Rep. Al Edwards is certainly making news this week. This time, he's worried about high school cheerleaders "shaking their behinds". The Statesman reports:
Chalk one up for silly legislation. Although, from what I remember, high school cheerleading ruitines were usually pretty tame - at least compared to college and professional sports where there are usually both cheerleaders and various dance squads. I think that someone has been watching too many B-rate high school cheerleading flicks. Pink Dome has a choice picture as well. March 17, 2005More Conservative Hysteria Over HB 3By Byron LaMastersThis one, in the form of an editorial certainly crosses the line regarding appropriate discussion regarding race in the 21st century. Calling this editorial blatantly racist would be a reasonable characterization. Here are excerpts from this week's Park Cities People editorial (emphasis mine):
I'll start by agreeing with one aspect of the editorial. The real problem is mediocrity. Texas must not settle for mediocrity, and Democrats refused to settle for mediocrity by voting against HB 3. I applaud them for that. Having said that, parts of this editorial step way over the line. The term "pygmy" broadly refers to an exceptionally short individual, although the term more specifically refers to members of various tribes in equatorial Africa and Southeast Asia. By itself, "pygmy" doesn't necessarily have a racial context, but the editorial goes on to make a blatantly racist statement: "First, a few unpleasant facts. In just 10 years, Anglos will be a minority in North Texas". Excuse me? Poverty, high teen birth rates and child abuse are unpleasant facts, but the fact that Anglos are declining as a portion of the regional population? Why is that an unpleasant fact? I guess that the Park Cities People are looking for an unreconstructed George Wallace or Lester Maddox to lead the Texas GOP to victory in 2006. Update: More at The Frontburner. March 16, 2005Conservative Groups Attack HB 3By Byron LaMastersVia Quorum Report is news that major conservative organizations are increasingly vocal in their opposition to HB 3. HB 3 passed 78-70 (PDF file) on the second reading on Monday. Yesterday, two conservative organizations released statements on the issue. The Young Conservatives of Texas wrote:
Also yesterday, the Texas Public Policy Foundation wrote:
Democrats ought to have a field day with this one come 2006... Update: Repulican Talk Radio reaction:
Sweet. Another Update: Also at Pink Dome. March 14, 2005Atrocity WatchBy Jim DallasBecause there's nothing better than screwing the common folk on a lovely spring evening, the Legislature passed H.B. 3 just a few hours ago. Brad Plumer, who is guest blogging over at Washington Monthly, has already gotten in a few gasps as of this writing. Shock and awe, and all. The final vote was 78-70. I don't know the break down on the roll call vote, since it hasn't been posted yet. But it looks like a few Republicans crossed party lines to vote against it. Pink Dome has the details on amendments. Meanwhile, In The Pink Texas reports on Wonkette's appearance in Austin. P.S. Quorum Report just posted the vote record. P.S.S. This is of course "tentative" in so far as it's only the second reading. Hence the Chronicle's headline. Rick Noriega ReturnsBy Byron LaMastersState Rep. Rick Noriega (D-Houston) returned to the state house last week while on leave from the National Guard. Noriega has been serving in Afghanistan. Houston Democrats and Kuff have more. I'll join them in saluting Rep. Noriega. Thank you for your service, and have you thought about running for U.S. Senate? I couldn't think of a better profile... March 13, 2005Retire/Rehire ControversyBy Vince LeibowitzMost folks who don't know a lot about the Teacher's Retirement System of Texas and who don't follow some of the more mundane parts of education policy and politics in Texas may not be familiar with the concept of "retire/rehire," whereby teachers may retire from active employment with a school district, and then go back to work for that or another school district while drawing both their TRS pension and a salary--sometimes without a loss of pension benefits. There is a great article about the practice in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram today, and rather than rehash bits and pieces of it, I'll just say it's worth a read for anyone following the Lege this session. On that same note, the article mentions private companies that school districts may contract with to administrate "retire/rehire" programs. I've heard the pitch of one of these companies, JR3, back when I was covering an Edgewood Independent School District Board of Trustees meeting a few years ago. If, after reading the article, you don't think there is serious potential for abuse of this system by local districts--or that it may be being abused at all, consider this "testimonial" statement from JR3's website by a school district:
Blog ShoutoutBy Karl-Thomas MusselmanSince I have nothing better to do at the momment, I guess I'll post about State Rep. Aaron Pena's blogging. Though it doesn't have any comments, and it's impossible to link to any page directly, I'll pull some quotes out from the March posts that I thought were funny. Actually, I just realized that I can't even cut and paste the text from his site. Well damn. I'll just say that you should read the first 4 March entries and know that the numa numa dance was mentioned, re-confirmation that State Rep. Richard Raymond wants to run for Congress, that the "Lobby" reads blogs (oh yay), and that state Rep. Jim Dunnam has a new nickname (Cupcake) thanks to an amendment he made on behalf of his daughter. March 12, 2005I Think I Like This Bill...By Vince LeibowitzI can't say that I've read all of the more than 5,000 bills filed in the Texas Legislature as of Friday's deadline for filing (and who can?), but I have checked out some bills proposed by my State Senator, Dr. Bob Deuell (R-Greenville). To be honest, I checked out his filings today because, while in Austin this week, I heard through the grapevine that he was going to file a last-minute bill on parental notification/judicial bypass. Well, I didn't find one, unless I missed it. I did, however, run across Senate Joint Resolution 44 which would amend the Texas Constitution to allow counties to issue bonds or notes to finance the development or redevelopment of an unproductive, underdeveloped, Previously, only municipalities had the option to do this. While I do believe there are drawbacks to SJR 44 because it could potentially be abused for "economic development," ie, corporate welfare by making "blighted" areas suitable for specific businesses without them having to pay a dime, I believe that this type of financing could help underdeveloped communities across the state in a number of ways. In our county, we have two wonderful communities which could be considered "blighted." It is my hope that this legislation will allow counties to utilized bonds or certificates of obligation to help such communities--which aren't incorporated municipalities--through things like road improvement and extensive community clean-up. Both of the communities I'm talking about in our county (and I'm sure you have similar ones in your coounty) are full of wonderful people who have to drive on some of the worst roads in the county and live in some of the worst conditions in the county because the county has no money to make their situation any better. One community, Rolling Oaks, is in such bad shape because, when it was founded as a subdivision years ago, the subdivision regs were written in such a way that they are totally useless, and most of the roads in the subdivision were never deeded to the county as they should have been back when they were driveable. Now, they're in terrible shape and are "private roads." And, the county can't take them in without either (a) buying the rights of way and roads or (b) some private party paying the money to fix the roads to county specifications and then have the county take them in. It is my hope that SJR 44 would allow the county to pay for improvements in communities like Rolling Oaks (which has become, in part, a haven for drug dealers, who live in dilapidated manufactured homes and trailers amid the nicer homes and manufactured homes). Another community, Wynne Community, faces similar problems but doesn't include many manufactured homes. It is an African American settlement totally surrounded by the city of Canton's borders and First Monday Trade Days. Because of subdivision regulations in portions of the community built in the 1960s and 1970s, it faces the same problems relating to bad roads. It also has a public park that needs repair, and has several pieces of property the county could go in and clean up if it had (a) a nuisance ordinance and (b) money to do it. My hope is that SJR 44 will be able to help counties transform blighted communities into better communities, and not be abused for "corporate welfare." If it is for the former and not the latter, then I think I like this bill. March 11, 2005Strama and Baxter on HB 2By Byron LaMastersInteresting story in the Austin American Statesman on the thought process of Austin Representatives Mark Strama (D) and Todd Baxter (R) - both of whom won by razor-thin margins last November. Strama considered voting for the bill throughout the day before ultimately voting against it. Baxter, on the other hand, voted for Democratic ammendments before voting for the bill. March 10, 2005"Do You Write For..."By Vince LeibowitzI just got back (well, five hours ago, really) from a two-day junket to Austin for Van Zandt County Days which included, among other things, spending a lot of time aimlessly wandering the halls of the Texas Capitol doing lots of...well...eavesdropping, actually, on legislators, lobbyists, tourists and just about anyone who was engaging in a conversation I thought was worth hearing. Given I'm no stranger to the Texas Capitol and this was like my third Van Zandt County Days celebration, I spent more time visiting folks I knew and listening to the tabling marathon on HB 2 than engaging in all of the ceremonial stuff our group usually engages in. To start the morning off, our delegation was recognized in the Texas House, which I missed because somehow the time got moved up. But, since the board members of the Council of Van Zandt County Communities (of which I am an officer) wasn't recognized on the floor as initially planned (there wasn't time, we were told), I guess I didn't miss much. Instead, I was in the gift shop searching for a replacement for a pewter state seal lapel pin I had that broke. After that, we had our photo made with Texas Governor Rick Perry and our State Rep., Dan Flynn (R-Van) and State Senator, Dr. Bob Deuell (R-Greenville). We were right behind the delegation from my native county, Wood County, which was also under the Pink Dome celebrating Wood County Days. They had their photo made with the Governor and their legislators, Rep. Bryan Hughes (R-Mineola) and Sen. Kevin Eltife (R-Tyler). As we were getting set up for our photo, who should I notice but Jeff Fisher, Executive Director of the Republican Party of Texas (and our former County Judge). He was there to meet and greet some of his former colleagues and constituents. I spoke to him for a little bit, too. And, Governor Perry was in fine form as well, complaining about his allergies and greeting the two youngsters in our delegation, signing autographs, and even commenting on one of our group member's brightly colored shirts. As much as I disagree with Rick Perry on nearly everything under the sun, he is quite the "campaigner," shaking hands with many within reach (I was standing too far to his left to engage in this, no pun intended) and just chatting away. I had actually hoped I'd have been standing closer (though I was only on the second row), so to have shaken his hand and introduced myself. I've met him several times before, but, what politician remembers everyone he meets? In addition to hoping he saw the huge nametag I had identifying myself as County Chairman of the Democratic Party of Van Zandt County, I would have casually mentioned, "Oh, I also write for Burnt Orange Report every once in a while," just to see how quickly he would have moved on to the next person. Sadly, I didn't get the chance to do this. Following this, Sen. Deuell was kind enough to take the youngsters in the group into the Senate Chamber to sit in his desk and have their photos made. I followed along to take pictures. After this, our delegation was recognized in the Senate. While that was going on, I actually went over to the House side where my state Rep. Dan Flynn, was gracious enough to go and retrieve my uncle, State Rep. David Leibowitz (D-San Antonio) from the floor to meet a few of our delegation and pose for a couple of photos. After this, who should I see in the halls of the Texas Capitol aside from one of my personal political heroes, former State Sen. David Cain, who is now a lobbyist. We chatted for a while caught up on "local gossip," so to speak. After that, I and the Executive Secretary of our local party, her husband and their son braved the maze of the capitol annex to find my uncle's office, as their son was going to be a page for him in the House during the afternoon session. No sooner than I'm greeting the secretary does another staffer ask me, "are you the same Vince Leibowitz who writes for Burnt Orange Report?" Of course, I said "yes, that's me!" I'm just surprised that I would have such name recognition under the dome given that I'm not that frequent of a poster. But, to give you an idea about this, I was standing outside the doors to House later that day waiting for our delegation's page and noticed a guy who looked like a young lobbyist staring at my name tag. Finally, he, too, asked, "Do you write for Burnt Orange Report?" But, the true highlight of the day occurred in the House Gallery during the afternoon session. I had gone to see some folks who used to work for David Cain but now work for Sen. Eddie Lucio (where I also complained about the media credentialing process as it relates to bloggers), and then made my way up to the gallery. I had been thinking all day, "I bet I'll see the lady who writes "In The Pink Texas," one of my favorite Texas Blogs. No sooner than I had sat down in the gallery near some of our delegation and very near an attractive lady with a laptop, did this lady turn to me and say, "Are you Vince Leibowitz who writes for Burnt Orange Report?" Bingo, once again. It turned out to be Eileen Smith, the publisher of the blog live and in person. (And, she mentioned me on her blog!) What a small world. At any rate, we made fun of Legislators and the tabling marathon that was occuring at that moment until her laptop battery started to die. Also, since I am sometimes oblivious to my surroundings after a night of little sleep because (a) the air conditioner in the hotel room went out and (b) whoever was in the room next door was having a heck of a party, I was totally unaware I was sitting less than 10 feet from Bill Hammond, head of the Texas Association of Business! It appeared he was napping in the gallery, and I got a great (but slightly blurry) shot of him appearing to snooze. Of course, I didn't take it with my camera, so I won't have the pic until later, but when I do, rest assured (again, no pun intended), I'll make sure it makes the rounds! At any rate, it was a good trip. I did overhear a great tidbit while waiting in line for the elevators Wednesday morning, but I'm going to have to find a little more about it before I post anything on it. It may turn out to be nothing at all, but it was curious that the people whispering about it made it a point to start to talk about it, look around and see the crowd behind them, and then move right to the elevator doors to "whisper" their conversation in a loud enough whisper that I could make out every single word. HB 2 Passes, Close Call on Final VoteBy Andrew DobbsSorry I didn't get this up sooner but I just got to a computer for the first time in a while. HB 2 passed tonight on a closer than expected vote, 76-71. All the Democrats except Al Edwards voted "No" and Edwards voted "Present, Not Voting." It seems strange that a guy from a poor district wouldn't be fervently against a bill that would make his district poorer compared the the rest of the state and force major budget cuts, but then you remember that Al Edwards does whatever the Speaker tells him to and it starts to make some sense. Still, not a single Democrat voted for the bill and we were joined by 9 Republicans (10 if you count Plano's Brian McCall, who would have voted against the bill, but was paired with the absent Bill Callegari and voted PNV). The most important of those was the only Republican to speak against the bill, and he did so with such passion and poise that I have a new and deep respect for him- former school superintendent Bob Griggs of North Richland Hills. He is credited with bringing several Republicans over with him. The Republicans who sided against the bill were Fred Brown, Charlie Geren, Toby Goodman, Bob Griggs, Pat Haggerty, Delwin Jones, Ed Kuempel, Tommy Merritt and Todd Smith. All the mean things I say about Republicans are not meant towards you, until you do something to screw it up (which I'm sure they will soon). That goes double for the four that voted for Hochberg's amendment- Brown, Goodman and Merritt (they were joined by Bob Hunter, who voted for the final bill). Don't be too worried about the impacts on public schools, though. HB 2 doesn't go into effect without the passage of HB 3, and that bill doesn't have the votes to pass right now. Plus, the Senate will certainly make some huge changes to HB 2 and Dewhurst has said that HB 3 is "Dead on Arrival." So it hopefully won't be as bad as things look right now. March 08, 2005HB 2 LivebloggedBy Byron LaMastersAndrew has been doing a great job liveblogging the HB 2 debate. Several others have been liveblogging the debate as well. The pinkos were at the capitol - check out the liveblogging by Pink Dome and In the Pink, Texas. Inside the Texas Capitol and the Quorum Report also have several updates from the house floor today. Republicans Pass Tax Increase, Cut In School FundsBy Andrew DobbsFor years Republicans have argued that when Democrats vote for a smaller tax cut than the Republican plan, they are voting for a "tax increase." That's exactly what happened today when Scott Hochberg's amendment on HB 2, which would have dramatically lowered property taxes on middle class Texans, was tabled by a vote of 81-67. This HB 2 is still being debated, HB 3 will be up later this week most likely. Stay tuned to BOR for all your news on these important bills. Legislative Budget Board Reveals Tax Increase in HB 3By Andrew DobbsI don't have the document yet, but Jim Dunnam referred to it on the floor today and my boss was chatting about it, but the nonpartisan (actually, GOP appointed) Legislative Budget Board analyzed HB 3 and found that every Texan making less than $100,000 a year would see a tax increase under the GOP plan- to the tune of a total of $1.1 billion. Taxpayers who make more than This is huge, and any Republican who votes for HB 2 (with the property tax cut) or HB 3 (with the funding mechanisms) should be attacked without quarter. Update: See the Tax Equity Note here. Details: the median Texas family would see a 4.3% tax increase, and the less you make the bigger your tax increase. If you make over $100,000 you see a tax cut, everyone else gets a tax increase. Changes to HB 3, Debate Begins on HB 2By Andrew DobbsYesterday it was revealed that there was a $1.2 billion gap in HB 3- the panopoly of new taxes would not pay for the massive property tax cut. So the bill was sent back to Ways and Means who spent all day looking for ways to make up the money. Here are the changes made: 1. The payroll tax was increased from 1.1% to 1.15% and the cap on income subject to the tax was raised from $80,000 to $90,000. So the job killing tax is even higher now- great job guys. Seriously, when you tax something, you make people less likely to do it- simple economics. So why would you tax jobs? Every business in this state, particularly small businesses and labor intensive businesses, will know that every job they create is an extra tax burden for them. Now that burden will be even higher to pay for a huge tax cut for the wealthy. John Smithee, a rural Republican who apparantly has some sense about him, asked some tough questions of this section (before voting for the bill). He asked why there was a cap at all, since that makes the tax regressive. Committee Chair Jim Keffer explained that he didn't want to discourage businesses from hiring high-salaried employees. So upper class people should be able to get jobs, but poor folks shouldn't? Great policy, Jim. 2. The new tax on newspapers was left out of the drafting of the bill by mistake, so they've made sure to correct that error. 3. Snack foods will now have a 3% sales tax increase, higher than everything else. So those of us who read newspapers, smoke, eat junk food and have cars that like to break down are really screwed. Thank God the strip club tax didn't make it into the bill or I'd be getting really hard. 4. Tobacco companies who aren't a part of the tobacco settlement will be taxed at a rate to bring them up to the level of state contributions that settlement-included companies are. This is actually good policy, as some manufacturers (American Spirits come to mind) charge extra money from consumers but don't pay into the settlement. Cigarettes are bad for you, everyone knows that, and they should all pull their fair share. So those are the big changes to HB 3. HB 2 is on the floor today and where there was once a move to unite rural Republicans and urban Democrats, now there is a move to get urban and suburban Republicans on our side as the carrot used to lure the rural Republicans onboard- an increase in transportation funding- actually short changes suburban and urban districts. So no one knows what will happen, but it looks like HB 2 will likely pass, but HB 3 won't. In other words, we'll have a whole host of new funding requirements without any bill to provide the money. Trainwreck, here we come... Watch the debate yourself and see what happens here, and stay tuned to BOR for your news on the legislature. March 07, 2005Republicans Jumping Ship on HB 2 and HB 3By Andrew DobbsMany may not realize this, but no major piece of legislation has been passed by the House this session. Only some local bills that typically pass by unanimous consent and resolutions honoring this or that local good guy have been passed. All is hinging on school finance and tax reform- HB 2 and HB 3 respectively- and right now things aren't looking so good for the GOP plans on either bill. To begin with, the king of GOP tax policy, Grover Norquist, has come out against the tax bill:
Geez... when Grover Norquist and I agree on something things are getting scary. He's completely right about the standard of living reduction, but I suspect that his tax plan would just eliminate everything and end a ton of government programs. Still, as the article notes, a bunch of Texas legislators have signed a Norquist-designed pledge not to raise taxes and it will be interesting to see how they'll sell this bit of hypocrisy to their constituents. They claim that because they are lowering property taxes, it all evens out, but as I pointed out last week HB 3 would raise taxes on a majority of Texans. BTW- Chris Kenedy pointed out that I didn't take into account that not every taxing unit (only a majority) aren't at the $1.50 cap. Point taken, and it actually means that people who live in places lower than the $1.50 cap will see an even higher tax increase under HB 3. But I digress. Not only is Norquist- the uber Republican and ally of Gov. Perry- speaking out against HB 3, but Perry's not-so-uber-Republican-nemesis Carole Keeton Strayhorn has revealed that the bill doesn't actually cut property taxes:
Republicans are backtracking quickly, claiming that they probably made just a "one word mistake" that would cost the state $1.2 billion, but it looks like the debate might be delayed even further with this revelation. It might be a waste of time, however, as it seems more and more likely that the bill will be amended to pass the Democratic alternative with a significant number of rural Republicans joining forces to get the necessary 76 votes. From the Associated Press:
Remember that Robby Cook came within a hair's breadth of switching parties in 2003 (they had the press conference all organized and everything before he changed his mind) and that Scott Campbell is still a Republican. Pat Haggerty, an El Paso Republican (unfortunately, they do exist), has liked the bill to the Jonestown Massacre. Tommy Merritt, another Republican who likes a lot of Democrats, has said he will not vote for the plan. Those probably make up for the handful of Dems who will vote with Craddick and Grusendorf and all the other rural GOP votes will be on top of that. Enough people are starting to jump ship that the Democrats might just get something they want this session. But Craddick and his crew will fight to keep their party in line and there is an excellent chance that the regular session will end in deadlock without a school finance bill. Special sessions will be called, but politicians will start getting antsy about their elections and things will get really interesting. The GOP has shown a distinct inability to lead, and this offers Democrats a great opportunity why our message is better. Either way, stay tuned to BOR for your information on the 79th Legislature. LimitationsBy Jim DallasA reader, in a "where's the outrage" moment, wrote a note regarding House Bill 838, which would eliminate the statute of limitations for certain sexual assault felonies, including indecency with a child. He says that the bill is getting held up in committee (I can verify that the bill is still awaiting action in committee, for what it's worth), and asked me to spread the word about the hold-up. Putting myself into the shoes of a legislator, I'd have mixed feelings about the bill. On one hand, it's very important to prevent child molestors from getting off; but on the other, there are some heavy practical considerations for why the current statute of limitations (which requires suspects to be prosecuted before the victim's 28th birthday) might be sensical.* (below the fold). Still, I think the reader is absolutely right to demand an up-or-down vote on this bill, and I would hope that our Democratic leadership tells Rep. Terry Keel that. * Limitations is one of the most important procedural rules protecting the accused, and shouldn't be taken lightly. In deterimining limitations, the severity of the crime and the likelihood of the existance of evidence upon which a prosecution can be successfully conducted seem to be the most important factors. Clearly sexual abuse of children is a very heinous crime, but the problem I see is that in many cases there will not be much evidence left by the time the victim's 28th birthday rolls around; memories dim. That isn't to say scars heal, of course. But what if we end up convicting innocent people? In Texas, there are essentially only two types of crimes crimes where the law provides no time-bar to prosecution: homicides (intentional or negligent), and sexual assaults where there is un-identifiable DNA evidence. (New York appears to have a similar limitations scheme.) In both cases, there's abundant evidence of the crime (homicide - there's usually a body) occurring. But in sexual assault cases, there may often be very little physical evidence to prove the offense even occurred, particularly decades afterward. Building a case around circumstantial evidence and "he said/she said" testimony (particularly when it relates to things adults think they remember about their childhood - things which often turn out to be wildly incorrect) does not sit well with me. Ultimately, my concern is, would permitting prosecutions for 20, 30, 40 year old crimes lead to a more just state of affairs? Would abolishing limitations have much of an effect at all? I don't know. But I don't think the answer is clear cut either way. As a legislator in this situation, I'd have to weigh these considerations, and I'd very much hope that proponents and opponents would have anecdotes or statistics to back up their points. March 04, 2005Republican Tax Plan Would Raise Taxes on Majority of TexansBy Andrew DobbsSo I've been at work today crunching numbers. I've been doing the math to figure out the impact of the various tax plans on Texas families. Since the Democratic plan doesn't have all the details on how they'll make up for their cuts and new expenditures, its like comparing apples to oranges, but just the impact of the property tax cut is pretty dramatic. I'll start there. The GOP plan will simply cut the M&O Property Tax Rate from $1.50 per $100 valuation to $1.00 per $100 valuation. Local governments could add another $0.10 per $100 valuation "enrichment tax," and with their finance plan pretty much everyone will have to pass one of those. The Democratic plan, however, would triple the homestead exemption- from $15,000 to $45,000- and lower the rate only to $1.25. This would only apply to homeowners, businesses would see no cut in the rate. The primary advantage to the Democratic plan is that most rural Texans, inner-city residents and South Texas residents live in homes valued not much more than $50,000. Suburbanites live in the big fancy houses, so the homestead exemption wouldn't effect them much. But most Texans would see a significant benefit. The average Texan lives in a house valued at $109,639. Right now they pay $1419.59 a year in property taxes. Under the GOP plan, their taxes will drop to $1041.03- a 27% decrease with the enrichment tax included. Under the Democratic plan however, their taxes would drop to $807.99, a 43% drop. Half of Texas would see a bigger decrease than even that 43%. Furthermore, every single Texan- no matter how poor- would only get that 27% decrease under the Republican plan. Under the Democratic plan, the lower the value of your house (and by extension, the poorer you are) the more you keep. Just for some examples, let's look at some selected districts. In Delwin Jones' (a West Texas Republican) rural district homeowners would see an average drop of 50%. Terri Hodge's inner city Dallas district would see a decrease of 65% and Aaron Pena's South Texas district would see a drop of 81%! A majority of Texans would see a decrease greater than 43%, while under the GOP plan everyone would get only 27%. For years whenever Democrats voted for a smaller tax cut than Republicans, Republicans have called that a vote for a "tax increase." So is it far for us to say that Republicans want to raise property taxes on a majority of Texans? But that's not all. The Democratic plan doesn't have all the details as I've said, but they are unlikely to have much of a sales tax increase and would probably shy away from the payroll tax proposed by the GOP. That's beside the point. What is important is that under the GOP plan the average Texas family would see a tax increase. That's right- their taxes would INCREASE. Let's do the math. For our purposes we're going to use the Texas average home value ($109,639), the state's median household income ($45,861), the state's average family structure (two parents and one child) and have $300 of repairs on at least one car (not an unlikely scenario). First, the average family will get a $473.20 property tax cut. This will be followed by absorbing the 1.1% payroll tax. Don't like me using this there? The Republicans are selling it by saying that businesses can simply "shift" their payroll costs- cut salaries, benefits or jobs. Furthermore, for years Republicans have decried the federal payroll tax by saying (as economists back them up) that the 6.2% employer share of the tax comes out of wages. The most pernicious thing is that Texans won't even see this tax being taken from them necessarily, but they will be paying it. This tax will cost them $504.47 a year. That leaves them with a $31.27 tax increase. Next comes the sales tax. The IRS says that the average Texan in this salary bracket paid $714 in sales taxes last year. The GOP increase is 11%, meaning they'll pay $792.54 in sales taxes without accounting for the expansion of the tax base. $31.27 plus $78.54 equals a $109.81 tax increase now. But what about those $300 in repairs? While that was once tax exempt, it now gets taxed with a bill of $27.60. Add it all up and you have a $137.41 tax increase for the average Texas family. Realize that for people who don't own their home (36.2%) the increase will be even greater, and about half of all homeowners will have a higher tax increase than even this. So how is this revenue neutral? Because the very wealthy get a big tax cut. Let's take a typicaly Highland Park family. On their $500,000 house they'll be saving $1940 a year in property taxes. But on the payroll taxes they are only taxed on their first $80,000 of income, not every penny of it like the average Texas family. So they only pay $880, leaving them with a $1060 tax cut. With the sales tax increase they'll lose $182.16, leaving them with a tax cut of $877.84. Finally, they pay the same amount in car repairs ($27.60 on their $300 of repairs), giving them a $850.24 tax cut. So a family that makes $150,000 a year and lives in a rich suburb gets $850 in their pockets, chump change for them in the end (0.5% of their income), while the middle class family gets a $137.41 tax increase. This bill benefits the rich more than the poor, but it doesn't even benefit them that much in the end. We need more details on the Democratic plan, but as it stands now this plan should be killed no matter what- even the status quo is better it seems. March 03, 2005New Details on the Backdoor Income TaxBy Andrew DobbsOn Tuesday I posted an article on the new GOP-proposed backdoor income tax, or as they want to call it a "Uniform Business Tax" or now a "reformed francise tax." There are some new details to add. The tax is no longer pegged at 1.25%, but rather 1.1% and it now it seems that it will only apply to the first $20,000 of income per employee per quarter. Great idea guys- now if you are a lower-class or middle class employee 100% of your income is subject to taxation, but your bosses who make more than 80 grand a year only have to pay it on that first 80 grand. Of course, it is employers and not employees who pay the tax on paper, but the major selling point is that employers can just "shift" payroll costs, i.e. cut benefits, salaries or jobs in order to make up the cost meaning that employees pay it in the end without the benefit of seeing it on their paycheck or getting to write it off of their taxes. Flat taxes are regressive to begin with, but a flat tax that not only doesn't have an exemption for low wage earners, but in fact has a cap to benefit high wage earners makes this a scam of epic proportions. If you want an income tax, vote for an income tax, but please don't support some regressive, secretive, job-killing scheme such as this one. Republic hypocrisy has reached a new depth. March 01, 2005HB 2 Voted Out of CommitteeBy Andrew DobbsHouse Bill 2, the school finance bill, was voted out of the House Public Education Committee today in a short meeting at Grusendorf's desk on the House floor upon adjournment. Most think that the debate will begin on the bill on Monday or Tuesday of next week and it promises to be a blood bath. Hearings on the bill this week found only 1 witness in favor of the bill and an odd alliance of property rich and property poor school districts, along with teachers, administrators and others all joining forces to denounce the bill. For a recap on why everyone hates the bill, we'll start with Quorum Report, one of the better places to start on these things (though paid subscription is required):
So, I don't want to rip Harvey off too much, but that is the jist of what went down. Property wealthy districts don't like the bill because there is hardly any new money and the enrichment tax ($0.10 per $100 of property value) is unlikely to cover their expenses. Property poor districts don't like the bill because it does nothing to increase equity and in fact takes us back to pre-Edgewood (the original Texas school finance case) levels of inequity. Teachers don't like it because the merit pay proposals strike them as unfair and insufficient, administrators don't like the cuts to successful programs and the later school start date. Everyone in the education community is dead set against the bill, and the Senate hasn't even taken a crack at the thing yet. As if all of this weren't enough, the whole funding system is starting to fall apart. At the beginning of the session HB 2 was paired with HB 3- they were two halves of the same whole. The idea was that HB 2 would define how the money would be spent, HB 3 would come up with the money while cutting property taxes. But with the wrangling over revenue sources to make up for the shortfall that will arise with the massive property tax cuts (namely over gambling) and what is soon to emerge as a struggle over the back door income tax, the two are too difficult to handle at the same time. So now HB 3 is simply a tax relief bill, HB 2 is simply an education reform bill and the money for HB 2 is going to have to come out of the budget some how. $3 billion is what has been promised, but how they can guarantee that when there isn't enough money in the bank to fund our current programs at their current levels has yet to be answered. Harvey puts it this way:
Yeah, so all of the work done last session was really unnecessary because in their desperation the GOP just came up with a number and are going to try and find the money for education somewhere. Rather than saying "this bill designs an equitable system, this is how much we need to achieve this, this is how we will get that money", the GOP is now saying "this is how much money we'd like to have, God willing and the creek don't rise we'll be able to jimmy-rig an equitable system out of it, assuming we can find the cash somewhere." Sloppy policy making at its worst. This bill is an inequitable, insufficient, despised piece of boneheaded malarkey that has been molested by a dozen short-sighted politicians more interested in pleasing lobbyists and winning reelection. If it passes the House, it will be a miracle. If it passes the Senate it will probably portend the end of the world. As it stands, a fight is about to come down and the one thing the GOP promised to do in 2005 will be another broken promise. Texas deserves better, but until they start voting for new leadership they won't realize how much they are being shortchanged right now. HB2 Giveth, HB2 Taketh AwayBy Jim DallasThe Chronicle reports that school officials believe that much of the new funding will be eaten up by unfunded mandates. The result is that very little new money will actually go to the kids. To make matters worse, the Supreme Court today ruled that we can't execute the little hellions, either (my take on that case here). The result... sigh... is that we may have to raise taxes in order to comply with the ed-funding court orders. Writes the Statesman:
All these court rulings can be a real pain in the neck, man. Ya'll dig? Republican Back Door Income TaxBy Andrew DobbsThis legislative session is headed toward a dramatic meltdown in just about a week as HB 2- the bill that was supposed to make Texas schools more equitable and put more money into them, but actually makes them less equitable and looks like it will force major budget cuts in various districts- heads for a floor debate on either March 7 or 8 according to sources at the Capitol. I'll write another post on all of that jazz shortly, but as for right now I have another peeve to discuss. At the beginning of the session school finance reform and property tax relief were seen as two sides of the same coin and two separate bills were filed- HB 2 to redefine funding formulae for Texas schools and HB 3 to shake up the tax system in order to get the money for the schools. Now the two have drifted apart and have very little to do with each other (more on that later) and some of the things coming out of HB 3 are likely to raise some eyebrows. First on that list would be the push for a new "Uniform Business Tax" to make up for lost revenue with the major property tax cuts proposed. Quorum Report has the talking points being passed around to explain and defend the new tax. I'll quote some of them here:
The bolds are mine, the editor's notes are Harvey's. So let me get this straight... there will be a new 1.25% tax on payroll and employers will conceivably shift this cost onto employees, making it a 1.25% tax on income. Sure it can't be witheld from your paycheck, but at the point when a tax is being paid on one's income and the tax is in effect coming out of one's pocket how is that not an income tax? In fact, it has all of the negatives of an income tax without some of the biggest benefits- the people who are paying it in the end can't write if off their federal income taxes, though their employers can. Big employers get the best of this deal- they get lower property taxes and they can write off a new tax that they just make their employees pay. A big state and federal subsidy to business in the end. I don't necessarily oppose this tax- it is better than the status quo, though if you really want property tax relief at the expense of an income tax why not pass Eddie Rodriguez's bill (which would eliminate the bulk of property taxes and dramatically increase state revenue)? My big problem is with hypocrisy. Every election cycle Republicans try and beat us over the head with the income tax- in 2002 they used it to great effect against John Sharp, who didn't even support an income tax- they claim that it will never happen, it's the third rail of Texas politics. But now the GOP is the one introducing it. It is just another sign of their shamelessness and their complete lack of principle. Finally, like any good income tax, the lobbying for loopholes has already begun. Wal-Mart and HEB are seeking a cap on the amount they have to pay in payroll taxes, though they are far less likely to pack up and leave than many other labor intensive businesses- call centers are the example Harvey Kronberg gives. So not only will be tax provide them with big opportunities to make the people of Texas and the United States at large fork over large sums of money, they will have strict limits on how much they have to pay. Great public policy, Craddick. Keep your eye on Burnt Orange Report for new developments, and be sure to call all the Republican legislators you can to ask if they'll be supporting the new Back Door Income Tax. February 27, 2005Craddick Avoids TestifyingBy Byron LaMastersShocker! Craddick cuts a deal:
February 21, 2005"Makeover" Proposed For Corporate Campaign Giving LawsBy Vince LeibowitzA bi-partisan bill to prevent union and corporate money from being used in attack ads launched within 60 days of a general election--and require the disclosure of contributors to last-minute attacks--has recieved a warm welcome from watchdog groups but a lukewarm reception from some state officials, the Houston Chronicle reports. The measure is sponsored by Rep. Craig Eiland (D-Galveston) and Rep. Todd Smith (R-Bedford), who say the bill will bring Texas law more in harmony with federal election laws. The Chronicle notes Campaigns for People, Public Citizen, the AARP of Texas and other groups are already on record praising the proposal, including a lobbyist for the Baptist General Convention of Texas. [I had no idea the Baptist General Convention of Texas had lobbyists.] The Chron notes:
On a particularly interesting note, Smith says the legislation will cover the various types of ads aired in the Senate District 1 Special Election last spring, in which Rep. Tommy Merritt (R-Longview) was targeted as he ran against former Tyler Mayor and now State Senator Kevin Eltife (R-Tyler). Merritt was attacked with "radio ads before the election from undisclosed corporate funds, Smith said. The ads asked listeners to call Merritt's office, not to vote against him." Twenty-six other states have a ban on corporate and union campaign spending, Eiland said. Though Texas has one, the lawmakers evidently believe it needs clarification, though they aren't trying to impact or comment on a Travis County grand jury investigation into campaign spending in 2002 state legislative races and that their proposed law would only affect future elections. Prosecutors are examining whether $2.5 million in corporate money was illegally funneled to Republican state House candidates. Under the proposed legislation, non-administrative employees of companies could not be asked more than twice a year about donating to a corporation's political action committee. Also, corporate money for PACs could be used only for specific administrative expenses, such as office space, computers and telephones. Disallowed expenses would include political consulting fees, telephone banks and political fundraising--some of the areas Texans for a Republican Majority tried to claim were "administrative" during the 2002 election. The bill got mixed reception from the leadership in both chambers and from Perry. House Speaker Tom Craddick (R-Midland, said he wasn't supporting or opposing the campaign finance bill. However, he said he believes there are problems with interpretations of the existing law. Sen. Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa (D-McAllen) and Sen. Robert Duncan (R-Lubbock) are backing the proposal in the Senate, ahtough Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst said he doesn't think a tightened ban on corporate and labor spending is needed. And, even if the bill passes, Governor Perry could veto it. Perry spokesman Robert Black said the governor will take a "wait-and-see approach," but that he has always favored increased campaign disclosure. When Will Joe Nixon Learn To Shut Up?By Vince LeibowitzRemember Joe Nixon? One of Texas Monthly's "Worst Legislators" of the 2003 session? Well, he's at it again. In spite of all of the flack he took for his own mold-settlement boondoggle, Moldy Joe is singing the praises of Texas' tort reform in the bastion of unbiased reporting on the insurance community, Insurance Journal:
In what state do you live, Joe? How do you prove patients are "experiencing better access to healthcare? If physicians and hospitals are saving so much money because of tort reform, why don't you challenge them to take care of the 150,000 kids you kicked off the Children's Health Insurance Program for free? Surely, if they are experiencing such massive savings ($20 million for one hospital system?--read on), they should be able to do some charity work and help all the kids you, Arlene Wholgemuth and the rest of the anti-tax, anti-consumer, anti-poor people legislative crowd screwed, right? Or, perhaps, they should save that money for campaign contributions? Also, I haven't heard a single doctor talk about lower liability costs until I read this industry propaganda. Why? Because, even though the amount paid out by insurers in settlements remained roughly the same from year to year (and there are statistics to prove this, I just can't find them on the web at the moment), they raised their rates anyway. Why? To make a profit. The need for "tort reform," was all smoke and mirrors built on one industry's flimsy excuses! Yet, you continue to note:
Where did you get them stats, Joe? Maybe you got them from the Texas Department of Health (or whatever agency it's now under thanks to you and your buddies wonderful government reorganization back in '03). I couldn't find them. And, if these are official state stats, how do you know these aren't recent medical school grads from right here in Texas? Surely all these people didn't come to Texas to practice just because of Prop 12? The article continues spewing forth:
Ohhh! Five Percent! I'm positively giddy with the thought that my dad's urologist can buy a new coffee table for his waiting room with such massive savings! As for the other stuff, where do you get these stats? I've read many a "Texas Judicial System Annual Review" report over the years, and never once did I see a line item for "suits against doctors." Also, how in the hell do you figure that doctors "won" 85 percent of the suits against them? Did you just make this stuff up? Did you personally go to all 254 county courthouses in Texas and research this? Or are you just borrowing your stats from whatever lobbyist happens to be standing in the corridor when you leave the Capitol restroom holding a shiny binder? Furthermore, if the medical community won 85 percent of suits after Prop 12, they'd have likely won 85 percent before Prop 12, meaning there was no need for Prop 12 in the first place. If anything, the suits that were filed and made it to trial under the farce you call tort reform would have been more air-tight than anything filed before. Finally, could it be, if you are indeed correct about the reduction in number of lawsuits being filed, that more people are settling out of court before ever filing lawsuits? Sure, that may mean there are less lawsuits, but not less money going out the door for insurance companies. And still more:
You said it. Seldom is legislation successful. Just because these people talked a big game before the Holy Civil Practicies and Remedies Committee does not mean they're actually going to do what they said. Oh, and, by the way, if they don't, what are you going to do? Is "contempt of legislative committee" an offense in Texas? February 19, 2005Sin Taxes & What You Could Buy With Your "Tax Relief"By Vince LeibowitzAn increased cigarette tax, one of the "ultimate sin taxes," Texas could impose to raise revenue for public school education, was the hot topic at the House Ways and Means Committee meeting Thursday. The proposed $1.00 per pack increase could bring in as much as $800 million in additional revenue per year. Naturally, folks on both sides of the issue liked up to testify:
Far be it for me to agree with the filthy cigarette lobby, but it seems they may be right: it's not a stable revenue source. Not only would the revenue from the tax go down as more Texans stop smoking, but revenue would also decrease in tough economic times when Texans have less disposable income to spend on the nicotine delivery devices of choice. And, on the subject of taxation, the El Paso Times had an interesting article which noted:
My question is, how do you consider $340 a year tax relief? Sure, in every single poll that comes along, everyone says they want "tax relief." But, let's be realistic (and I think may be making an argument of Ben Barnes' here, but couldn't find reference to where I thought it was online, so bear with my version of it): if Texans knew how little tax relief they'd actually recieve, and what good that money could do, wouldn't they just say "to hell with that?" Let's see. $340 dollars of tax relief. What can you do with that, especially when it's not really a savings you "see" in your pocket like your IRS refund? You could: •Pay part of your car/house payment, or all of it if you have cheap car payments, for one month. Of course, those are just some numbers I crunched on my handy calculator, so they aren't nearly as sophisticated as anything anti-tax advocates would use. I just thought it would be interesting to illustrate exactly what $340 could buy, since the figure was thrown out there. February 18, 2005A Gas Tax Increase?By Byron LaMastersThis Houston Chronicle article yesterday spurred quite a reaction among Texas blogs:
Kuff says that it's an "idea to consider", while Greg and Save Texas Reps are decidedly negative to the idea. Rick Perry vs. the World on the other hand, takes a look at the proposal in the context of the looming GOP primary for Governor, while In the Pink, Texas offers up a laugh. My two cents on the idea? Frankly, I think that increasing the gas tax is a good idea for Texas. Texas has by far the most highway mileage of any state in the country, so one might think that we'd have a high gas tax in order to maintain that structure - well, no. Texas 's twenty cent gas tax ranks us #36 in the nation. On the other hand the three other "megastates", New York, California and Florida rank first, third and eighth in their gas tax respectively ($0.392, $0.359, and $0.306). I generally oppose regressive taxation, but there's a very clear differentiation between gambling and a gas tax. Whereas gambling has negative social effects, a gas tax has positive ones. Higher taxes on gasoline discourage driving, encourage public transportation and carpooling, and reduce pollution and traffic congestion. Also, as far as regressive taxes go, a gasoline tax is less regressive than most. Low income people are more likely to use public transportation, whereas high-income folks are more likely to drive gas-guzzling SUVs. All in all, a gas tax increase wouldn't be my first choice, but of the options that have been seriously considered thus far, it's definitely one of the better ones. February 17, 2005Daily Texan profiles Strama's First MonthBy Byron LaMastersIt's worth a read to see how Austin's freshman lawmaker has been spending his time in his first month at the lege. It's amusing that the one issue Strama has found success in finding a GOP co-author (Rep. Corbin Van Arsdale, R-Houston) is the resolution calling for the abolition of the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) for College Football. It worked for the Longhorns this year, but it's still a bad system that doesn't allow for the best teams in the country a shot at the national championship. Now, what the Texas legislature can do to change the BCS is beyond me, but it's nice to know that we can get bipartisan agreement on football, if nothing else. Speaking of Mark Strama, he was spotted at the 15th Street Starbucks by In the Pink, Texas last week. Geez, maybe if I'd spend more time at that Starucks, at the Texas Chili Parlor or at the Cloak Room, I might have politician sightings, too. February 10, 2005Hey Ossifer, What About My Livil Ciberties?By Vince LeibowitzIn addition to some other stupid anti-alcohol legislation put forth this session, the Lege is now debating DWI checkpoints to trap drunk drivers. This issue failed in the Lege in 2003, and I doubt there is enough momentum for it to pass this time. That, and way, way, way too many legislators recieve a heck of a lot of money from beer distributors. KXAN.com notes:
Naturally, MADD (mothers against Drunk Driving) is behind this. Now, I'm all for not driving drunk, and MADD has done some good work in the past, but let's be real, folks. At what cost does all of this come to civil liberties? I'm very glad the folks over at the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyer's Association pointed out just how bad an idea this is:
Of course, for the cause of civil liberties, it might have been better if the American Beverage Institute had kept their mouth shut on this one. Though I didn't know Texas is one of only a handfull of states without this legislation, it doesn't change my view: this is bad public policy. And, MADD isn't a group that should be setting public policy in Texas, period. For one thing, though MADD mentions the "15 percent" statistic on how many drunk driving deaths they think this legislation will reduce, I'd like to see some real statistics, perhaps from those states such legislation has been passed in. I'd also like to see some statistics regarding what percentage of drivers within these checkpoints is actually found to be drunk. Unless it's a holiday or the checkpoint is set up near a bar, I'd bet the numbers are few and far between. Let's consider this further for a moment: MADD's argument is that, to save 15 percent of 250 lives, we should all be willing to be stopped, given field sobriety tests, possibly breathalizers, and generally be investigated without probable cause anywhere at any time on any road anywhere in Texas. I'm all for saving lives, but I think this is a little extreme. It's kind of like the Patriot Act and similar legislation: In order to stop one terrorist or person who may be a terrorist, the government gets free and unrestricted access to ask our local library what books we are reading. Or, that one person kept in jail for three years (without legal counsel) after 9-11 who wasn't a terrorist should willingly sacrafice those three years of lost freedom in hopes that the government snared a terrorist in its wide net cast with seemingly wanton disregard for civil liberties. It just doesn't seem right. In light of our collective loss of civil liberties after 9-11, I think the Texas Legislature should be especially careful what liberties they take away from us. I'm more willing to perhaps give up a little liberty at an airport to stop terrorists than I am to give up civil liberties on the highway to stop potential drunk drivers. Yes, I know we're all targets of drunk drivers and could be killed by one any day. I guess I'm saying I'll take that risk over surrendering my right to travel down Interstate 20 unrestricted. As for the Lege, there are a lot of people who could really piss off the liqour lobby with a "yea" vote on this legislation. The liqour lobby is a huge contributor to campaigns of Democrats and Republicans. The list of recipients, just from the Beer Allicance of Texas PAC, is huge, and flows on both sides of the aisle. You can get the list by going here and putting "beer alliance" in the search spot for "contributor." Or, you can go here and look at the Alliance's Ethics Commission reports. Once again, just to be totally clear, I'm all for not drunk driving, and all for curbing drunk driving deaths. This isn't, however, the right way to do this. Consolidating PowerBy Karl-Thomas MusselmanComing from the same party that enjoys having the power to chose which districts and voters should be theirs, comes yet another outright power grab. I don't usually cut large clips from e-mails but this one sums it up well...
Check out Drive Democracy's Blog post about it. February 09, 2005Lawmakers Look Seriously At Trans Texas CorridorBy Vince LeibowitzI haven't read much on opposition to the Terrible, woops, I mean Trans Texas Corridor this session, but it is out there, according to this AP report. Many will remember that Governor Perry announced the $184 billion dollar TTC as an election-gimmick back in 2002 when he was running for re-election. What many don't realize about the TTC is that it will literally cut hughe swaths through some parts of the state and take, via eminent domain, thousands of acres of land all over the state. Like many Texans, I actually thought the concept of the TTC--merging rail, truck traffic, and car traffic into a state-of-the art mega highway--sounded good at the time, until I actually looked over and studied some of the plans. Here's what AP notes about lawmakers and TTC:
If you're interested in more TTC-related issues, visit CorridorWatch, one of the most comprehensive sites on the Web dealing with TTC issues. Follow The StupidityBy Andrew DobbsIn 2003, changes in eligibility for CHIP meant that hundreds of thousands of kids lost their health care. The architect of these changes was Arlene Wohlgemuth. From the Quorum Report, November of last year:
And yesterday, the Texas Hospital Association released a report saying that the Wohlgemuth-led cuts have really hurt Texas. From the press release announcing the report:
Now comes the not so funny part- according to Quorum Report today, Arlene Wohlgemuth is the new lobbyist for the Texas Hospital Association. So an organization that not 24 hours ago was decrying her work in costing the state BILLIONS of dollars has now hired her to represent them in trying to undo her seminal accomplishment- balancing the budget on the back of poor children so that her rich donors wouldn't have to pay higher taxes. Great job THA, you have proved your own irrelevance. February 07, 2005Heflin Withdraws Election ChallengeBy Byron LaMastersDetails to follow... Live Stream of the Heflin press conference here on live stream 8. 4:40 PM: Heflin is withdrawing his challenge of Hubert Vo's election... 4:47 PM: The press conference is over. All I can say is that it's about frickin' time. Time for Andy Taylor and Ol' Talmadge to pack their bags and go home. Heflin's political career for all intents and purposes is over - good riddance. 5:35 PM: Houston Chronicle story here. Heflin vs. Vo Findings Highlights & Coverage RoundupBy Vince LeibowitzI finally got some time to read the entire 60 page report released this morning by Rep. Will Hartnett (R-Dallas), Master of Discovery to the Select Committee on Election Contests. There were some very interesting things in there, including the mention that Heflin and his attorney, Andy Taylor, presented no credible evidence of fraud. Here are some of the highlights: From the Summary
This was particularly interesting, and Hartnett addressed it further when considering the case of one of the deposed voters, Franca Ejiofof:
In discussing guidelines used in making the determinations regarding contested votes, Hartnett was very clear that a heavy burden of proof had to be met:
And, since Heflin didn't show that, Hartnet concluded:
This was a very close election decided by only a handful of votes out of more than 41,357 cast. After months of discovery, the detailed review of the voter files of 259 persons, and hours of examination and analysis of voter files by the parties and the master, it is the opinion of the master that the Contestant has failed to meet his burden of proof. The master concludes that Representative Vo retains his seat by not less than 10 votes and not more than 20 votes, depending on the impact of the five votes that may still be counted. In a nutshell, that is the report. It did, of course, contain a great deal of information dealing with exactly what guidelines Hartnett used in making his conclusions, a re-hashing of what both sides submitted to the panel, and a great deal of dissection of exploration data, and divided up votes/voters in questions into various categories and discussed persons in those categories who were deposed. As for a "coverage roundup," In The Pink Texas has some of Andy Taylor's comments on the situation. Kuff has an updated round-up including breaking stories on it, and a link to the report. Save Texas Reps has a link to some hearing transcripts, asks the question about whether or not Andy Taylor committed fraud, and has Vo's statement</>. Time to tap the kegBy Jim DallasOr was that uncork the bubbly... Kuff: Vo "wins". P.S. Nonetheless, don't stop working! For Houston area readers, consider heading over to Greg's Opinion and asking Old Man Wythe about the many opportunities for party-building. The full Hartnett report is here (PDF file). February 06, 2005Spector LosesBy Byron LaMastersIt wasn't that close. I'll have more thoughts on all this in the next day or two, but I am proud of the fact that Spector only lost by three votes in the precinct where Karl-Thomas and I worked. Here's the results: State Representative District 121 - Unexpired Term Paul Silbert IND 401 2.76% Total Votes Cast 14,555 February 04, 2005Objection Hearsay!By Jim DallasI can't say I have personal knowledge of this, but I spoke with a representative of a local non-profit today who suggested that there may be not one, but two special sessions in the mix; one on education, the other on child protective services. The education reform ball is rolling with the filing of HB2 yesterday; and the Quorum Report suggests that it could be up for a vote as early as next month. But will the school funding issues that crashed last year's special session still throw a monkey wrench into the gears? Meanwhile, CPS overhaul is getting talked about. Moreover, the income tax is apparently getting discussed again, since all these reforms are going to need to be paid for, somehow. Again, I can't verify any of this independently, but it seems like a plausible scenario, which is why I offer it. February 03, 2005Volunteer for Rose SpectorBy Byron LaMastersAs Karl-Thomas noted below, we'll be driving down to San Antonio on Saturday to volunteer for the Rose Spector campaign. I spoke with their campaign today, and they NEED volunteers to work at the polls and to phonebank. Anyone in the Austin area interested in joining us on Saturday is welcome. The plan is to caravan from the UT campus area around 10 AM. If you're interested, email me: Byron AT BurntOrangeReport DOT com for details. I'm time-dating this forward a bit to make sure that as many Austinites as possible see this. This is a tough district for Democrats, but special elections are all about turnout, turnout, TURNOUT. Together, we can make a difference in that department. Finally, if you want to help, but can't make the trip, send Rose Spector some last minute cash. She'll need it, especially if the race goes into a run-off. February 02, 2005Just Say "No" To Nudist Youth CampsBy Vince LeibowitzSince I both despise Rep. Bryan Hughes (R-Mineola) and love writing abour zany, bizarre bills, I just couldn't pass this up:
I can see the point about nude pedophiles, as Van Zandt County is unfortunate enough to be home to the "Ponderosa Naturist Retreat" (a nudist colony) on State Highway 64 in Myrtle Springs, and a few years back there were several people from there charged with all manners of inappropriate acts, but don't Legislators have other things to worry about than whether a nudist youth camp might come to Texas? School finance, perhaps? Either way, this is about par for Hughes. During his last campaign, almost every speech he gave centered around three things: 1.) He made it legal for kids to pray in public school 2.) he made it a requirement for kids say the pledge to the flag in school, and 3.) He is against gay marriage. Not just a terrible amount of substance there, but then again, what do we expect from the single largest recipient of TRMPAC funds in the entire state? But, since Hugues is at it, I wish he'd get the legislature to prevent the local nudist colony's landscaper from mowing the outer lawn of the "retreat" right along the highway in a thong and nothing but, because, if you're unfortunate enough to drive by when that's going on, it just ain't right. Vince Leibowitz is County Chairman of the Democratic Party of Van Zandt County January 31, 2005Poor Losers, Poorer Losers and The POOREST LoserBy Byron LaMastersMeet Talmadge Heflin [Houston Chronicle Editorial] Via Greg and Kuff. January 30, 2005On Hubert VoBy Byron LaMastersI'm cautiously optimistic from what I've heard from people familiar with the hearings. According to one source, Vo still leads in Hartnett's count by over a dozen votes after all of Heflin's challenged votes have been ruled on. Kuff has the best recap of everything, so give it a read. Update: Greg Moses pegs Harnett's count of Vo's lead after complete review of all voter depositions at 13. January 29, 2005One Republican Drops out in HD 121 RaceBy Byron LaMastersThis certainly shows that Rose Spector is giving the GOP a scare in HD 121:
I figured all along that Straus and Spector would be the two candidates advancing to a run-off, but Starnes withdraw makes it possible that the race will be decided next Saturday. January 25, 2005RoseSpector.comBy Byron LaMastersElection Day is February 5th for the special election in HD 121 in San Antonio. It's a strong GOP district, but special elections are strange creatures, and anything can happen, so learn more about the Democratic candidate at RoseSpector.com. Special elections are all about turnout, and a good GOTV opperation needs cash - lots of it, and quick. So donate to her campain here. Heflin v. Vo, continuedBy Jim DallasKuff and Greg are all over this. The Daily Texan says Heflin should give up. January 23, 2005Ever Wonder What Your Legislators Do For A Living?By Vince LeibowitzGlancing through one of Van Zandt County's five newspapers a few days ago, I ran across the name of a State Representative in a story about Canton ISD's search for a new superintendent. Only, it wasn't our local Rep, Dan Flynn. It was none other than Bob Griggs (R-North Richland Hills) of HD 91. It seems Dr. Grigg's company, Bob Griggs & Associates, is conducting a superintendent search for the district--and for districts all across the state, of which 47 currently have superintendent vacancies. For some reason, I have a problem with this. Everyone's got to make a living, and a lot of retired superintendents form consulting companies to do everything from employee searches to administrate controversial "retire/rehire" programs that are the bane of groups like the Texas Retired Teachers Association. In fact, my counterpart in Wood County, Democratic County Chairman Dr. Charles Thompson has his own company and forms superintendent searches, too. What I question is whether a sitting state representative (or his company) should be doing business with school districts throughout the state in this manner. Granted, it's not lobbying, and the "& Associates" in the company name means he obviously has other people working with and/or for him. It's also oddly suspicious to me that there is no mention of Griggs' owning or any association with his company in his House bio. Should Griggs not be required to file some special disclosure that he's working for and with other government bodies in Texas--especially since those governments recieve most of their money from the state? Not surprisingly, the Texas Government Code is silent on this point. The Government Code does, however, note the following about various activities by legislators and regulations governing the activities of legislators in various professions:
In fact, a while back, Texans for Public Justice made a big deal about legislative continuances, and even sued a couple of legislators to force them to disclose the continuances they requested. So why is a State Representative (or his company) doing such cozy business with Texas school districts no big deal? I can't answer that. But, I know if I was a school board trustee, and a Democrat, I wouldn't hire a Republican legislator's search firm to shine my shoes because I'd be afraid of the reccomended candidates. Although, I must note that, by all accounts (and Griggs was Superintendent in Canton for a time), Dr. Griggs was an excellent school administrator, and I seriously doubt he'd do something like present a school board with a slew of right-wing job applicants. Nevertheless, he's making a living off of (or at least supplementing his state retirement and legislative pay with) taxpayer dollars, since schools are funded with tax money. So, why shouldn't he have to disclose this? Vince Leibowitz is County Chairman of the Democratic Party of Van Zandt County. January 20, 2005Taking Off from WorkBy Karl-Thomas MusselmanSo we needed a $40 million dollar event to let the world know that Bush will be our president for the next four years, just in case you missed it a couple months ago. Of course, this highly important activity which affects people's everyday lives here in Texas was more important than actually doing the business of the people of Texas, in Texas. The legislature adjouned for 10 of their precious 140 days of session to attend today's partying. Education needs to be fixed. Health care needs to be revisited. By golly, even re-re-redistricting might rank a notch higher in importance. But no, it was time to go Party, leaving us with stories like this to be written instead...
Oh boo hoo, cry me a river and get back to work. Cracking Down on Beer?By Karl-Thomas MusselmanThere will be a few bills filed this session dealing with Underage drinking in Texas, all to be opposed by the Beer Industry of course, but this time, I feel like I might have their backs. The Statesman gives us a preview... A House bill filed this week would require Texans who buy kegs of beer to fill out a state registration swearing they are 21 years old and promising not to serve the beer to minors... Another bill would limit the amount of alcohol that may be served in any one drink by licensed retailers to a half-ounce of pure alcohol or the equivalent. A police investigation into Wagener's death confirmed that he had been served eight or nine 4-ounce shots of liquor in 30 to 45 minutes, roughly the amount of a one-liter bottle of liquor... And then the what seems to be the silliest one... A second Eissler bill would punish vendors who sell alcohol to people during the early morning hours of their 21st birthdays... From what I have heard about this last bill, it would supposedly make it illegal for the vender or bar owner to sell alcohol to those who have just turned the legal age 21 on the first day. Meaning, you are gonna party like it's your birthday, but you can't until noon of that day, or if it is Sunday, then not until 8 pm. (Considering that as it is now, the day you turn 21, you can legally drink at 12:01 am of that day. Sounds like a lot of paperwork and hassel to me that isn't going to cut down on drinking but simply delay it for half a day, frustrating businesses and young people. January 19, 2005Spector in the Race for HD121By Karl-Thomas MusselmanFormer State Supreme Court Justice Rose Spector has officially entered the race for the now-vacant HD121 seat in San Antonio. The race includes two former office holders — Democract Supreme Court Justice Rose Spector and former Democrat (but running as an Independent) Rep. Paul Silber. They will be joined on the ballot by Republican businessmen Joe Straus III and Republican Glen S. Starnes. Hat tip to Greg, who makes a comment I agree with when he gives kudos to whomever got her into the race (Charles Soechting?). Maybe Andrew can help us out on that one. January 18, 2005Statesman Blog on the SessionBy Karl-Thomas MusselmanI have been very impressed by the Austin American Statesman's blog on the Texas Legislative session. Little odds and ends, insider bits and stories of the day to day happenings. I only wish we had as much access to write stories like this non-stop for BOR. One interesting story to note...
Gasp! Can you imagine the attacks that would be coming from the Right if the Party labels had been reversed? It would be much ranting about those unpatriotic Liberals giving excuses and being un-American. They would question "form over substance" because as we all know, every school child looks forward to starting the day with Pledges and stands up tall and embraces them with overflowing pride. And since they don't view it as "going through the motions" they why shouldn't the Representatives of the People be held to the same standard. Such shame, such outrage! Damn America hating Liberal Democrats! Or should that be Texas hating Conservative Republicans Rep. Keel? Since it's just all pomp and circumstance to you... January 17, 2005Justice Rose Spector Looking to Run in HD121By Byron LaMastersAndrew noted earlier that a high-profile Democrat was considering a run for the House seat being vacated by Elizabeth Ames Jones, who was appointed by Rick Perry to the Railroad Commission. Now, we hear that former State Supreme Court Justice Rose Spector is looking to make a run for the seat:
As Andrew noted last week, the deck is stacked against us in that district, but a creditable Democratic candidate could make things interesting:
Rose Spector certainly would have creditability in the district, even though the district is over 60% Republican. Still, anything can happen in a low-turnout special election, and with a strong candidate, there is no reason why Democrats shouldn't throw some resources into the race. We'll know more after the filing deadline tomorrow afternoon, so stay tuned. Kuff and Vince have some thoughts on the topic as well. January 14, 2005The DeLay Rule in the Texas HouseBy Byron LaMastersI figured that this would be proposed by someone:
It would have been nice if Moreno could have gotten a recorded vote out of the issue, but remember, this is the Texas legislature. Speaking of recorded votes, the state house voted to change the rules on recorded votes in a non-recorded voice vote. I'm with Greg on this. It's still a farce. Also via the Statesman is news of the date set for the special election to fill the seat of Elizabeth Ames Jones. The filing deadline is January 18th, and the election will be February 5th. Opiela's OutBy Andrew DobbsNot official yet, but I just got word that Eric Opiela will be dropping his challenge of Yvonne Gonzales-Toureilles' victory over him in their South Texas race for the State House. 2 Down, 1 to go! Update: [Byron] The AP is now reporting this as well, as is the Quorum Report and The Red State. January 13, 2005State Representative and BloggerBy Byron LaMastersCool. State Representative Aaron Peña (D-Edinburg) has a blog. Peña wrote his first post on January 1, and has written five posts since then. Even better is that it looks like Peña actually writes the posts himself. Anyway, check out his blog here. January 12, 2005Gallegos Contest DismissedBy Byron LaMastersMost of the focus has been on the three state house contests (now two) by Republicans Talmadge Heflin and Eric Opieda. The contest by Jack Stick against Mark Strama was dropped last week. But there was a fourth contest as well - this one on the senate side. It was a frivolous challenge against Sen. Mario Gallegos (D-Houston) which was dismissed today:
So, what's that? Two down, two to go? As for the Hubert Vo contest, I attended the rally for Vo on the south steps of the capitol yesterday, and I'll post some pictures when I have the chance. For the latest on the Vo challenge, read the posts of Off the Kuff and Greg's Opinion from yesterday. On The "Surplus" and JonesBy Andrew DobbsYesterday was a busy day in Texas politics with the commencement of the 79th legislative session, the announcement that we have a surplus (or maybe not) and the appointment of Rep. Elizabeth Ames Jones (R-Alamo Heights) to fill a vacancy on the Texas Railroad Commission. A little more should be said about each. I have a good vantage point here at the State Party, and as always nothing I say should be interpreted as representing the positions of the State Party, its staff, contractors, Chairman or other officers. Let's begin with the surplus. Perry is tooting his own horn claiming that we have more than $6 billion more in state coffers than this time 2 years ago. That much is true, but to keep our stripped down services running at the same level with population increases since 2003, we would need about $5.6 billion of that money- leaving us with a rather paltry $400 million surplus (less than 1% of the entire budget). Perry claims that he wants to overhaul Child Protective Services and school finance. CPS alone would devour the surplus, leaving nothing for schools or restoring some of the more draconian cuts in 2003- still requiring some tax reform. The San Antonio Express News editorial board called him out today for "misleading" Texans with his statements, and Carole Keeton Strayhorn claimed that our problem isn't a budget shortfall but a "leadership shortfall" on the part of the governor. So don't start getting excited yet- we don't have enough to do the things Perry et. al have already promised to do- new taxes or budget cuts are on the table. And in the Elizabeth Ames Jones affair, it is true that her district is largely Republican and it will be an uphill battle one way or the other. But its very nature is encouraging several Republicans to run- all of whom will surely be sniping at one another- and at least one Democrat (whose name I can't talk about quite yet- I'll have it later this week at the latest) has enough credibility in the district to make a real run at it. The deck is stacked against us by GOP gerrymanderers, but let's just say that the district isn't a total wash for us. Keep your eyes on BOR for all your updates! Just thought I should throw all of that out there, and like I said- keep up with Burnt Orange Report for all your Texas political news! January 11, 2005Revenue Surplus?By Karl-Thomas MusselmanIf Craddick's statement today on the House website is any indication, looks like there won't be a shortfall for the legislature to deal with this session. Maybe we will have money to fund health and education?
Craddick Elected Speaker -- 4 Nay VotesBy Byron LaMastersTwo years ago, Tom Craddick was elected speaker with only one Nay vote - that of Lon Burnam (D-Fort Worth). The election of the speaker in Texas is rather silly, because everyone votes for the speaker so that they can get good committee assignments, etc. Hopefully, the Texas legislature will soon get to the day where both parties put forward a candidate for speaker, and the majority party candidate is elected. That's the way it should be, but a four-fold increase of votes against Craddick is a start. I'll post the names of the four voting against Craddick when I get them. In comments are the names of the four Nay votes on Craddick: Lon Burnam (D-Fort Worth) Eddie Rodriguez (D-Austin) was present, not voting. Kudos to them. The final vote was 142-4. In other news, Rep. Elizabeth Ames Jones (R-San Antonio) declined her seat in the legislature as she was nominated by Gov. Perry earlier today for a seat on the Texas Railroad Commission. Jones will replace Charles Matthews, who resigned his seat in order to take a position as chancellor of the Texas State University system. January 09, 2005Rally for Hubert Vo on TuesdayBy Byron LaMastersThe rally to suport Hubert Vo is at 2pm on the South steps of the capitol. If the session, which starts at noon, goes beyond 2pm, then the rally will be 30 minutes after it closes. Please come help show solid support. KAREN LOPER January 07, 2005Is Representative Democracy Dead in Texas?By Byron LaMastersVia Kuff,, Keir Murray of Houtopia writes of speaking with an unnamed state senator who says the Texas House GOP is likely to seat Heflin, dump Vo, and get on with the people's business:
The short term consequence of such action would be rather minimal. Democrats would be outraged, Asian-Americans would be outraged, and Talmadge Heflin would get his butt kicked in 2006. The long term consequences would probably see an alienation of the Asian-American community in Houston from the Republican Party for a generation, and significant challenges to Martha Wong and Joe Nixon for years to come. Is one seat really worth it to Republicans? Yeah, probably. They don't care. They consider lots of new people registering to vote to be a voting irregularity. They hate Democracy, and they've decided that Democrats are irrelevant. More thoughts about this with Greg, Kuff and Houtopia. January 06, 2005Mark Strama's Statement on the Withdraw of Jack Stick's Election ContestBy Byron LaMastersIt's kind of long, so check it out in the extended entry...
[I've omitted the second half of the email which has swearing-in and office information.] January 05, 2005Stick Withdraws Election ChallengeBy Andrew DobbsJust saw this come up on Quorum Report. It says that he withdrew the challenge but "wants House to consider voting irregularities." Details are to follow soon. Keep checking BOR for your 100% free updates on Texas politics. January 03, 2005Hubert Vo's Journey from Saigon to AustinBy Byron LaMastersGreat story in the San Antonio Express News on Hubert Vo's journey from Vietnam as a young man to the Texas legislature (Via Kuff):
Read the article for more. Hubert Vo's had a heck of a journey through his life, and the election contest is nothing compared to his past battles. December 31, 2004State House Election Contest Documents OnlineBy Byron LaMastersI'm not in the mood to sort through them right now, but the documents for the three GOP election contest can be found online here. December 30, 2004Vo Supporters Gather Signatures, Plan to Attend InaugurationBy Byron LaMastersWant to know what State Representative-Elect Hubert Vo (D-Houston) has been doing since he was elected? Pretty simple... he's preparing to represent district 149 in the Texas legislature, and his supporters in the district are doing their share to help him defend his victory. Read here. Really Stupid Ideas, and really, really Stupid IdeasBy Byron LaMastersWe can certainly expect Texas House Republicans to join Congressional Repulicans in joining Opperation: Save Tom DeLay's Butt when the 79th legislature meets in a few weeks. Plans range from some really stupid ideas like taking authority for prosecuting the campaign finance cases away from the Travis County D.A. to really, really stupid ideas like legalizing corporate campaign contributions. The New York Times reports:
Greg, like me, is outraged. December 29, 2004Practice What You Preach PACBy Byron LaMastersHere's the press release from yesterday on a PAC created to oppose a ban on same-sex vows, and attack the real threats to marriage. Take a look:
It has the endorsement of Texas Democratic Party Chair Charles Soechting as well:
Divorce is a threat to marriage. Gays and lesbians are not. If only the legislature would practice what they preach... Rick Noriega Chooses Wife to fill SeatBy Byron LaMastersUnder a new state constitutional amendment Texas state legislators who are on active military duty may designate a replacement to fill their seat until they return, or until their term expires. Texas will see that amendment in action for the first time with the start of the 2005 legislative session. State Rep. Rick Noriega (D-Houston) who was reelected in November is serving in Afghanistan with the Nation Guard, so he has asked his wife to fill his seat in the 79th legislature. The Houston Chronicle reports:
Hopefully this will all work out fine and good, but I am a little bit concerned. Here was the specific language of the amendment allowing for a member on active military duty to retain their seat:
I voted against the amendment because the language was unclear as to who actually chooses the replacement. If it were clear that the legislator on active military duty could choose his or her replacement, then the amendment would have made perfect sense, but the amendment did not make that clear. Thus, there's a possibility that the Republicans in the state house or the governor may decide that they can best choose who shall represent house district 145 even though Noriega won reelection unopposed. The Chronicle notes this potential problem later in the article:
For a Republican legislature that seems willing to throw away democracy in order to seat Talmadge Heflin, Eric Opieda and Jack Stick, I would not be surprised if they try and find a way to deny the people of house district 145 the representative of their choice. We shall see. December 28, 2004Bill Proposed to Lessen Marijuana PenaltiesBy Byron LaMastersState Rep. Harold Dutton (D-Houston) has proposed a bill to reduce the penalty for possession of less than one ounce of marijuana to the equivalent of a traffic ticket. The AP reports:
Sounds like a smart plan to me. Someone with less than an ounce of marijuana isn't a threat to society. Incarcerating nonviolent marijuana users (who aren't growing or selling it in large quantities) seems to be counter-productive. Winning the war on drugs in this county means drastically changing our approach. Spend less money on incarcerating minor offenders, and go after the dealers and those who perpetuate narcotics related violence instead. We should spend the money on rehab programs, instead of wasting money on incarcerating minor non-violent marijuana users. It makes perfect sense to me, but it's not the politically correct answer to winning the drug war, as most politicians (of both parties) are more interested in being able to claim that they're 'tuff on drugs, instead of actually trying a more innovative approach to solve the problem. Update: More at Grits for Breakfast. August 21, 2003Ratliff to Resign?By Byron LaMastersThe Laredo Morning Times reports that Republican Sen. Bill Ratliff (R-Mount Pleasant) may resign:
It would be a shame. Ratliff is one of the very few Texas Republicans that I really respect. I may disagree with him on the issues, but he plays fair and as Lt. Gov. he worked to include everyone and work with Republicans and Democrats. For awhile, I was impressed with David Dewhurst. I expected him to come in and be a joke. He did a decent job during session. I admire the way that he formed a consensus on school finance. But any respect that I gained for him earlier this year, I lost. It's a shame that people like Bill Ratliff no longer feel welcome in Texas politcs. A real shame. August 11, 2003Does your Legislator Drive a Lamborghini?By Byron LaMastersRep. Ron Wilson (D-Houston), who represents a working class, minority majority district in Houston drives one. Photos via Keep Austin United, an anti-redistricting site run by some Austin Democratic activists. Here's the picture they shot of "Texas' Worst Democrat" Ron Wilson getting into his Lamborghini and driving away. ![]() ![]() Ron Wilson was one of two Democratic State Representatives to vote for the House Republican redistricting map that would have likely resulted in the loss of 6 Democratic Congressmen (the other was Vilma Luna, D-Corpus Christi). Not only did he vote for the map, but he was openly critical of the Killer D's who broke quorum in Ardmore. I don't know about anyone else, but that's what I call a DINO (Democrat in Name Only). For that reason, I have called for his defeat in next year's Democratic primary. I don't know who will run, but I've heard that there will definitely be a challenge. Thank God. It's about time. July 23, 2003Another Reason Ron Wilson Needs to GoBy Byron LaMastersThe Dallas Morning News reports:
I've said this before, and I'll say it again. I'll drive to Houston and blockwalk for a REAL Democrat that runs against Ron Wilson in the primary. I'll donate money, even if I don't have it. Ron Wilson is an embarrassment to the Democratic Party. He needs to go. July 22, 2003Austin Chronicle Profiles Patrick RoseBy Byron LaMastersTwo and a half months ago, the last thing that I would expect from the alternative, lefty Austin Chronicle would be a profile of the conservative freshman state representative Patrick Rose (D-Dripping Springs). Rose, 25, is the youngest member of the state house, and had disappointed many Democrats with his many votes with the Republican leadership. His district is a Republican-leaning swing district, so it would make sense that his voting record be a tad bit more conservative than your average Democrat. Still, Rose won his election with the support of several hundred thousand dollars from Democrats across the state, and a lot of them weren't happy. Some, throughout the spring, suggested a primary challenge to Rose. Rep. Garnett Coleman (D-Houston) had some choice words for Rose at the Texas Young Democrats convention in April. Now, however, all seems to be forgiven. Rose joined 50 other Democrats in going to Ardmore, and Ardmore seems to have cured all ills. The Austin Chronicle, this week profiled Rose, which will certainly insulate him from any potential attacks from the left. Also, check out the Austin Chronicle article on the most endangered species in Texas politics. The rural white Democrat. July 01, 2003Carl IsettBy Byron LaMastersOne of the members of the redistricting subcommittee that met in Dallas on Saturday was Rep. Carl Isett (R-Lubbock). Rhetoric and Rhythm has a great post about how this home-school advocate, and relative far-right fringe (even for Lubbock) candidate was able to get elected through the power of religious conservative precinct chairs. June 25, 2003What will $50,000 buy?By Byron LaMastersWhile it is illegal to fundraise during the regular session, there is no law prohibiting fundraising during a special session. Only this session was a law signed that prohibits fundraising during the twenty days following the regular session, during which the governor has a chance to review bills to sign or veto (this law of course was inspired by the 2001 session where Rick Perry took tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars from special interests, and returned the favor to those interests by vetoing unfavorable bills). Anyway, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst has an offer for all you folks out there willing to spend $50,000. The Dallas Morning News reports:
Well, darn, it's tempting, but I think I'll pass on this one. June 20, 2003Defending Jim DunnamBy Byron LaMastersTexas Monthly called Democratic House Leader Jim Dunnam (D-Waco) one of the worst ten legislators. The Waco Tribune-Herald gave him an opportunity to defend himself, here. Texas Monthly Best / WorstBy Byron LaMastersAfter every legislative session, Texas Monthly puts out a list of the top ten best and worst legislators, and will give a few other prizes in between, including "furniture" for legislators that accomplish little. You can read the entire article here (requires free account). Here is this year's list:
My thoughts? I don't disagree too much with the top ten list. After all, there weren't too many Democrats with too many noteworthy accomplishments, and as much as a despise Arlene Wohlgemuth, I have to admit that she was a big player in this year's session. As for Rookie of the Year, I'm not sure what to say about Patrick Rose. About every Democrat in the state considered him worthless, until Ardmore that is (he went.. his district includes Lockhart, a small town that would have been divided 3 ways under the King plan), and now, we have to reexamine him. I'll support him for reelection, but I won't invest too much time or money into it. He's a good guy, and hopefully, if and when he gets a few reelection victories under his belt, he'll begin to vote more like a real Democrat. I like Lon Burnam's politics (he's the most liberal Democrat in the state house), and I wish that all the Democrats would have joined him in opposing Craddick, but they didn't and from a pragmatic point of view, his vote was stupid. Still, I was proud of him, and thanked him for it when I invited him to speak at an anti-war rally at UT in March. Still, practically speaking, it was a dumb move. Good to see Tom DeLay on the list. It's supposed to just be for legislators, but Tom DeLay likely had more impact on the legislature than almost anyone else, but the fat cats. Dunnam shouldn't be on the list. He, along with Garnett Coleman and Pete Gallegos were the brains behind the Ardmore escape. Dunnam did about as good of a job as any Democratic leader could, considering the circumstances. He fought the good fight, lost most of the time, but ask most any Democrat in the House (minus Craddick's committee chairs), and they'll say they're happy with Dunnam's leadership. Nixon, Lucio and Talton are all especially worthy of the list. Nixon carried a draconian "tort reform" bill, Lucio is a sell-out, and Talton is a hatemonger. Craddick ought to be on the worst list... he get a "dishonerable mention", but that's not enough. This session was the most partisan in memory, and if Texas Monthly gives some of the blame to Jim Dunnam for it, then they ought to give at least equal (and I'd say more... a lot more) blame to Craddick.
She received "The Joseph McCarthy 'Have You No Sense Of Decency?' Award". How appropriate. The furnature is pretty accurate. Sen. Barrientos is my senator in the legislature, and he's a great senator, but he had little opportunity to get much accomplished this session with the Republican leadership. |
![]() |
About Us
About/Contact
Andrew D. - contact Byron L. - contact Jim D. - contact Karl-T - contact Advertising Policies
Donate
![]()
Archives
June 2005
May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003
Recent Entries
Hutch Urges Special Session
Democrats Vindicated By Legislative Session Republican Legislators Unable to Say the "P" Word Editorial Boards Across the State Hammer the Lege The "Do Nothing" Legislature End of Session Notes Our Dumb Legislature Gay Foster Care Ban Stripped From CPS Bill District 143 Special Election Day Set State House Freshmen of the Year Named Vouchers Fail in the State House, Did Leininger Offer Bribes? HJR 6 Debate on the Senate Floor HJR 6 Senate Hearings Parental Consent Bill Passes State Senate More on HD 143 Ana Hernandez to Run for the Seat of Joe Moreno Cheerleaders to remain Bootylicious Parental Consent Bill Tabled This Headline Cannot Contain My Boiling Rage Overkill?
Categories
2004: Dem Convention (79)
2004: Presidential Election (570) 2006: A State Odyssey (8) 2008: Presidential Election (9) About Burnt Orange (130) Around Campus (144) Austin City Limits (147) Axis of Idiots (29) Blogs and Blogging (136) BOR Humor (63) BOR Sports (59) Budget (16) Burnt Orange Endorsements (14) Congress (41) Crime and Punishment (2) Dallas City Limits (102) Elsewhere in Texas (20) Get into the Action! (5) GLBT (152) Houston City Limits (31) International (96) Intraparty (39) National Politics (514) Oh, you know, other stuff. (31) Politics for Dummies (11) Pop Culture (67) Redistricting (256) Social Security (31) Texas Lege (130) Texas Politics (703) That Liberal Media (2) The Economy, Stupid (16) The Stars At Night Are Big And Bright (1)
BOR Edu.
University of Texas
University Democrats
BOR News
The Daily Texan
The Statesman The Chronicle
BOR Politics
DNC
DNC Blog: Kicking Ass DSCC DSCC Blog: From the Roots DCCC DCCC Blog: The Stakeholder Texas Dems Travis County Dems U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett State Sen. Gonzalo Barrientos State Rep. Dawnna Dukes State Rep. Elliott Naishtat State Rep. Eddie Rodriguez State Rep. Mark Strama
Linked to BOR!
Alexa Rating
Truth Laid Bear Ecosystem Technoranti Link Cosmos Blogstreet Blogback
Polling
American Research Group
Annenberg Election Survey Gallup Polling Report Rasmussen Reports Survey USA Zogby
Texas Stuff
A Little Pollyana
Austin Bloggers DFW Bogs DMN Blog In the Pink Texas Inside the Texas Capitol The Lasso Pol State TX Archives Quorum Report Daily Buzz George Strong Political Analysis Texas Law Blog Texas Monthly Texas Observer
TX Dem Blogs
100 Monkeys Typing
Alandwilliams.com Alt 7 Annatopia Appalachia Alumni Association Barefoot and Naked BAN News Betamax Guillotine Blue Texas Border Ass News The Daily DeLay The Daily Texican Dos Centavos Drive Democracy Easter Lemming Esoterically Get Donkey Greg's Opinion Half the Sins of Mankind Jim Hightower Houtopia Hugo Zoom Latinos for Texas Off the Kuff Ones and Zeros Panhandle Truth Squad Aaron Peña's Blog People's Republic of Seabrook Pink Dome The Red State Rhetoric & Rhythm Rio Grande Valley Politics Save Texas Reps Skeptical Notion Something's Got to Break Southpaw Stout Dem Blog The Scarlet Left Tex Prodigy ToT View From the Left Yellow Doggeral Democrat
TX GOP Blogs
Beldar Blog
Blogs of War Boots and Sabers Dallas Arena Jessica's Well Lone Star Times Publius TX Safety for Dummies The Sake of Arguement Slightly Rough
Daily Reads
&c.
ABC's The Note Atrios BOP News Daily Kos Media Matters MyDD NBC's First Read Political State Report Political Animal Political Wire Talking Points Memo CBS Washington Wrap Wonkette Matthew Yglesias
College Blogs
CDA Blog
Get More Ass (Brown) Dem Apples (Harvard) KU Dems U-Delaware Dems UNO Dems Stanford Dems
GLBT Blogs
American Blog
BlogActive Boi From Troy Margaret Cho Downtown Lad Gay Patriot Raw Story Stonewall Dems Andrew Sullivan
More Reads
Living Indefinitely
Blogroll Burnt Orange!
BOR Webrings
< ? Texas Blogs # >
<< ? austinbloggers # >> « ? MT blog # » « ? MT # » « ? Verbosity # »
Election Returns
CNN 1998 Returns
CNN 2000 Returns CNN 2002 Returns CNN 2004 Returns state elections 1992-2005 bexar county elections collin county elections dallas county elections denton county elections el paso county elections fort bend county elections galveston county elections harris county elections jefferson county elections tarrant county elections travis county elections
Texas Media
abilene
abilene reporter news alpine alpine avalanche amarillo amarillo globe news austin austin american statesman austin chronicle daily texan online keye news (cbs) kut (npr) kvue news (abc) kxan news (nbc) news 8 austin beaumont beaumont enterprise brownsville brownsville herald college station the battalion (texas a&m) corpus christi corpus christi caller times kris news (fox) kztv news (cbs) crawford crawford lone star iconoclast dallas-fort worth dallas morning news dallas observer dallas voice fort worth star-telegram kdfw news (fox) kera (npr) ktvt news (cbs) nbc5 news wfaa news (abc) del rio del rio news herald el paso el paso times kdbc news (cbs) kfox news (fox) ktsm (nbc) kvia news (abc) galveston galveston county daily news harlingen valley morning star houston houston chronicle houston press khou news (cbs) kprc news (nbc) ktrk news (abc) laredo laredo morning times lockhart lockhart post-register lubbock lubbock avalanche journal lufkin lufkin daily news marshall marshall news messenger mcallen the monitor midland - odessa midland reporter telegram odessa american san antonio san antonio express-news seguin seguin gazette-enterprise texarkana texarkana gazette tyler tyler morning telegraph victoria victoria advocate waco kxxv news (abc) kwtx news (cbs) waco tribune-herald weslaco krgv news (nbc) statewide texas cable news texas triangle
World News
ABC News All Africa News Arab News Atlanta Constitution-Journal News.com Australia BBC News Bloomberg Boston Globe CBS News Chicago Tribune Christian Science Monitor CNN Denver Post FOX News Google News The Guardian Inside China Today International Herald Tribune Japan Times LA Times Mexico Daily Miami Herald MSNBC New Orleans Times-Picayune New York Times El Pais (Spanish) Salon San Francisco Chronicle Seattle Post-Intelligencer Slate Times of India Toronto Star Wall Street Journal Washington Post
Powered by
Movable Type 3.15 |
![]() |