Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Follow the Money: The CEOs
In the midst of all this zip-code-focused donor analysis, we wondered if the CEOs of the fifty largest Texas companies (according to the Fortune 500) were giving to the presidential candidates. In previous posts we mentioned that Ed Whitacre, chairman of AT&T, was a McCainiac ($2,300), that Rich Kinder, of Kinder Morgan, was a Rudy rooter ($2,100), and that Mark Mays of Clear Channel is a Mitt man ($2,100). Here are the other corporate bosses at whose donations (almost all to Republicans) show up in the online database:
Timothy R. Eller, Centex, Dallas: $2,100 to Giuliani and $2,300 to McCain
Matthew K. Rose, Burlington Northern/Santa Fe, Fort Worth: $2,300 to McCain
Gary C. Kelly, Southwest Airlines, Dallas: $2,300 to McCain
Chad C. Deaton, Baker Hughes, Houston: $250 to McCain
G. Steven Farris, Apache, Houston: $2,300 to Giuliani
Ray C. Davis, Energy Transfer Equity, Dallas: $2,300 to Giuliani
David N. Weidman, Celanese, Dallas: $2,100 to Romney
John F. Antioco, Blockbuster, Dallas: $2,300 to Giuliani and $400 to Christopher Dodd
Lynn R. Blodgett, Affiliated Computer Services, Dallas: $2,100 to Romney
(By the way, although their companies don't appear on the Fortune 500, three other iconic Texas bidnessmen aren't sitting on the sidelines. Boone Pickens and Tom Hicks are heavy into Giuliani, and Ross Perot -- the elder -- is maxed out to Romney.)
Timothy R. Eller, Centex, Dallas: $2,100 to Giuliani and $2,300 to McCain
Matthew K. Rose, Burlington Northern/Santa Fe, Fort Worth: $2,300 to McCain
Gary C. Kelly, Southwest Airlines, Dallas: $2,300 to McCain
Chad C. Deaton, Baker Hughes, Houston: $250 to McCain
G. Steven Farris, Apache, Houston: $2,300 to Giuliani
Ray C. Davis, Energy Transfer Equity, Dallas: $2,300 to Giuliani
David N. Weidman, Celanese, Dallas: $2,100 to Romney
John F. Antioco, Blockbuster, Dallas: $2,300 to Giuliani and $400 to Christopher Dodd
Lynn R. Blodgett, Affiliated Computer Services, Dallas: $2,100 to Romney
(By the way, although their companies don't appear on the Fortune 500, three other iconic Texas bidnessmen aren't sitting on the sidelines. Boone Pickens and Tom Hicks are heavy into Giuliani, and Ross Perot -- the elder -- is maxed out to Romney.)
Dewhurst Says He'll Stick to Five Conferees
At his post-session press conference, David Dewhurst today put to rest the rumors that he would appoint seven members to the budget conference committee.
So despite a conversation between Finance chair Steve Ogden and House chair Warren Chisum about the possiblity (see earlier post), expect five senators, as usual, to be named to hammer out budget details. Dewhurst said he'll identify his conferees tomorrow, or Monday at the latest.
So despite a conversation between Finance chair Steve Ogden and House chair Warren Chisum about the possiblity (see earlier post), expect five senators, as usual, to be named to hammer out budget details. Dewhurst said he'll identify his conferees tomorrow, or Monday at the latest.
TIERS Critiqued by Inspector General
Inspector General Brian Flood has issued a report highly critical of TIERS, the state's new billion-dollar eligibility software system, and suggesting that state officials halt its expanded use.
Lawmakers are expected to be fully briefed by Flood late this afternoon in the Senate Finance Committee room. Apparently, TIERS has proved unreliable and cumbersome because it does not include historical data needed for case management.
Flood encourages state authorities to hire a project manager to determine the most cost effective system going forward.
In related news, Health and Human Services chief Albert Hawkins informed lawmakers via letter that the feds have expressed dissatisfaction with the TIERS system; subsquently, HHS will halt expanding use of TIERS.
While this all sounds like minutiae only a wonk would love, it has huge ramifications for privatization in the HHS arena. Some leaders believe that it is TIER's inadquacies that set up the problems associated with private vendor Accenture.
Lawmakers are expected to be fully briefed by Flood late this afternoon in the Senate Finance Committee room. Apparently, TIERS has proved unreliable and cumbersome because it does not include historical data needed for case management.
Flood encourages state authorities to hire a project manager to determine the most cost effective system going forward.
In related news, Health and Human Services chief Albert Hawkins informed lawmakers via letter that the feds have expressed dissatisfaction with the TIERS system; subsquently, HHS will halt expanding use of TIERS.
While this all sounds like minutiae only a wonk would love, it has huge ramifications for privatization in the HHS arena. Some leaders believe that it is TIER's inadquacies that set up the problems associated with private vendor Accenture.
Follow the Money: 78208, 78212, 78209, 78257, 78258, and 78207
From our old pal and colleague (and current writer at large) Jan Jarboe Russell, the chronicler of all things San Antonio, regarding that city's Alamo Heights, Olmos Park, Monte Vista, downtown, Dominion, Sontera, and West Side neighborhoods:
Tom and Nancy Loeffler, $2,300 each for John McCain. He is a former Texas congressman and the treasurer of McCain's campaign.
Charline and B.J. "Red" McCombs, $2,300 and $2,100, respectively, for McCain. He is the famously charming car dealer and former owner of the San Antonio Spurs, the Denver Nuggets and Minnesota Vikings.
Bart Koontz, $1,000 for McCain. McCombs's partner in a real estate company.
Lukin Gilliand, $250 for Richardson, $1,000 for Clinton, and $1,000 for John Edwards. A major Democratic fundraiser who recently ran for Congress in District 23.
Bonnie Reed, $1,000 to Clinton. A former county court at law judge, well-known for her work on domestic violence issues.
Pat Smothers, $500 to Clinton. Philanthropist who helped fund the Battered Women's Shelter.
Ruth Bowers, $2,000 to Clinton. A strong advocate for women's rights who helped pay for legal expenses in Roe v. Wade.
Jane Macon, $250 to Richardson. Fulbright and Jaworski partner.
Gail Beagle, $250 to Richardson. Long-time legislative aide to the late Henry B. Gonzalez.
Jose Villareal, $2,300 to Clinton. The former chairman of the National Council of La Raza was the treasurer for Al Gore's campaign in 2000. Partner at Akin Gump.
Henry Munoz, $2,300 to Clinton. Chairman of the board of Kell Munoz Architects, the largest minority-owned architectural firm in Texas.
Michael, Marynell, Michelle, and Pat Maloney, $2,300 each to Clinton. Well-known trial lawyers.
Dan Pozza, $2,300 to Clinton. Ran unsucessfully last year for the Fourth District Court of Appeals.
John Montford: $1000 to Bill Richardson. The former Texas senator and chancellor of Texas Tech University is a top executive at AT&T.
Joceyln and Joe Straus, $500 each to Giuliani. GOP stalwarts; owners of the Retama Park race track.
State Rep. Joe Straus, $250 to Rudy Guliani.
State Sen. Jeff Wentworth, 1,000 to Giuliani. From one moderate to another.
Tullos and Carri Wells, $2,300 each to Giuliani. He's a labor lawyer at Bracewell and, uh, Giuliani; they're a GOP power couple.
Bruce and Alethea Bugg: $2,300 each to McCain. He is the trustee of the Tobin Endowment, one of the city's largest foundations.
Frank Sitterle, $2,300 to McCain. Long-time San Antonio builder.
Walter and Gayle Embrey, $2,300 each to McCain. He is also a powerful builder.
John and Weise Steen, $2,300 to McCain. Old San Antonio family. John's father once ran for mayor. Weise is kin to the King Ranch family.
Ed Whitacre, $2,300 to McCain. Chairman of the board of AT&T.
H.B. Zachry, $2,300 to Giuliani. Mega-builder, especially of Texas roads.
Lester, Mark, and Randy Mays, $2,100 each to Romney. Clear Channel's owners (for now). K
John Hagee, $1,000 to McCain. Pastor of Cornerstone Church, a non-denominational mega-evangelical church.
Joan Kelleher, $2,300 to McCain. The wife of Herb Kelleher, co-founder of Southwest Airlines.
Ruth Agather, $2,300 to McCain. Herb Kelleher's daughter.
Barbara and Alan Dreeben, $2,300 each to Giuliani. He is a former member of the U.T. board of regents -- appointed by Rick Perry -- who owns Republic Beverage Co., a wine and spirits distributor.
Charles Cheever, $2,300 to McCain. Founder of Broadway Bank.
Robert and Betty Kelso, $2,300 each to McCain. He's a retired colonel and reliable GOP contributor.
Diane Rath, $1,000 to McCain. President of the Texas Workforce Commission, appointed by Rick Perry.
Tom and Nancy Loeffler, $2,300 each for John McCain. He is a former Texas congressman and the treasurer of McCain's campaign.
Charline and B.J. "Red" McCombs, $2,300 and $2,100, respectively, for McCain. He is the famously charming car dealer and former owner of the San Antonio Spurs, the Denver Nuggets and Minnesota Vikings.
Bart Koontz, $1,000 for McCain. McCombs's partner in a real estate company.
Lukin Gilliand, $250 for Richardson, $1,000 for Clinton, and $1,000 for John Edwards. A major Democratic fundraiser who recently ran for Congress in District 23.
Bonnie Reed, $1,000 to Clinton. A former county court at law judge, well-known for her work on domestic violence issues.
Pat Smothers, $500 to Clinton. Philanthropist who helped fund the Battered Women's Shelter.
Ruth Bowers, $2,000 to Clinton. A strong advocate for women's rights who helped pay for legal expenses in Roe v. Wade.
Jane Macon, $250 to Richardson. Fulbright and Jaworski partner.
Gail Beagle, $250 to Richardson. Long-time legislative aide to the late Henry B. Gonzalez.
Jose Villareal, $2,300 to Clinton. The former chairman of the National Council of La Raza was the treasurer for Al Gore's campaign in 2000. Partner at Akin Gump.
Henry Munoz, $2,300 to Clinton. Chairman of the board of Kell Munoz Architects, the largest minority-owned architectural firm in Texas.
Michael, Marynell, Michelle, and Pat Maloney, $2,300 each to Clinton. Well-known trial lawyers.
Dan Pozza, $2,300 to Clinton. Ran unsucessfully last year for the Fourth District Court of Appeals.
John Montford: $1000 to Bill Richardson. The former Texas senator and chancellor of Texas Tech University is a top executive at AT&T.
Joceyln and Joe Straus, $500 each to Giuliani. GOP stalwarts; owners of the Retama Park race track.
State Rep. Joe Straus, $250 to Rudy Guliani.
State Sen. Jeff Wentworth, 1,000 to Giuliani. From one moderate to another.
Tullos and Carri Wells, $2,300 each to Giuliani. He's a labor lawyer at Bracewell and, uh, Giuliani; they're a GOP power couple.
Bruce and Alethea Bugg: $2,300 each to McCain. He is the trustee of the Tobin Endowment, one of the city's largest foundations.
Frank Sitterle, $2,300 to McCain. Long-time San Antonio builder.
Walter and Gayle Embrey, $2,300 each to McCain. He is also a powerful builder.
John and Weise Steen, $2,300 to McCain. Old San Antonio family. John's father once ran for mayor. Weise is kin to the King Ranch family.
Ed Whitacre, $2,300 to McCain. Chairman of the board of AT&T.
H.B. Zachry, $2,300 to Giuliani. Mega-builder, especially of Texas roads.
Lester, Mark, and Randy Mays, $2,100 each to Romney. Clear Channel's owners (for now). K
John Hagee, $1,000 to McCain. Pastor of Cornerstone Church, a non-denominational mega-evangelical church.
Joan Kelleher, $2,300 to McCain. The wife of Herb Kelleher, co-founder of Southwest Airlines.
Ruth Agather, $2,300 to McCain. Herb Kelleher's daughter.
Barbara and Alan Dreeben, $2,300 each to Giuliani. He is a former member of the U.T. board of regents -- appointed by Rick Perry -- who owns Republic Beverage Co., a wine and spirits distributor.
Charles Cheever, $2,300 to McCain. Founder of Broadway Bank.
Robert and Betty Kelso, $2,300 each to McCain. He's a retired colonel and reliable GOP contributor.
Diane Rath, $1,000 to McCain. President of the Texas Workforce Commission, appointed by Rick Perry.
Follow the Money: 78701
Continuing our back-of-the-envelope analysis of the presidential campaign donor rolls, here are a few notables from the downtown Austin zip code, where so many of the city's influentials do business (and, apparently, give 'til it hurts):
Beau Armstong, $2,300 to Edwards. The CEO of Stratus Properties.
Ben and Melanie Barnes, $2,300 each to Richardson, Clinton, and Dodd; she gave $2,300 to Obama. This is on top of the donations that the former lieutenant governor and his wife made to Joe Biden's campaign
Blaine Bull, $1,000 to Richardson. Founding partner of ViaNovo and founding officer of Public Strategies.
Becky Beaver, $1,000 to Obama and $500 to Clinton. Divorce lawyer to the stars.
Lucius Bunton, $2,300 to Edwards. Former U.S. District Court Judge.
Kent Caperton, $1,000 to Richardson, in addition to his Dodd and Biden donations. Former Democratic state senator.
Kerry Cammack, $2,100 to McCain. Lawyer, Karl Rove pal, and husband of Texas Supreme Court Justice Harriet O'Neill.
Sophia Collier, $1,000 to Clinton. Companion of King Ranch kin Chula Reynolds.
Ken DeAngelis, $1,000 to Clinton. Founder and general partner at Austin Ventures.
Jeff Eller, $2,300 to Richardson. Public Strategies president and CEO who worked in Clinton White House.
Gary Farmer, $2,300 to Guiliani. In addition to the $$ he gave to McCain.
Neal "Buddy" Jones, $2,000 to Guiliani and $1,000 to Richardson. The wily, silken lobbyist and co-founder of HillCo Partners in a practical display of bipartisanship.
Tommy Jacks, $500 to Clinton. Personal injury lawyer.
Dean McWilliams, $2,300 to Huckabee. Like his wife, a big-bucks lobbyist who's loving on the former Arkansas governor.
William and Carrin Patman, $2,300 to Clinton. She is a lawyer; he is a former state senator and son of the late Congressman Wright Patman.
Jeff Sandefer, $2,100 to Romney. Entrepreneur and founder of Acton MBA program.
Scott Sayers, $1,000 to Guiliani. Consigliere to Ben Crenshaw.
John Schweitzer, $2,000 to Guiliani. Money man with fingers in nearly pot.
George Shipley, $2,300 to Clinton and Edwards. "Democratic political consultant" doesn't really do him justice, does it?
Broadus Spivey, $2,300 to Edwards. Powerful, well-respected trial lawyer.
James Street, $2,300 to Edwards. Still-venerated UT quarterback.
Larry Temple, $1,000 to Edwards. LBJ pal and aide; big supporter of UT.
John and Julie Thornton, $2,300 each to Obama and $2,300 to Clinton. Austin Ventures general partner and arts patron wife (the sister of TEXAS MONTHLY senior editor Nate Blakeslee) have long played the big-time Democratic donor game.
Bruce Todd, $500 to Clinton. Former Austin mayor whose wife is the daughter of the late George Christian, press secretary to LBJ.
Beau Armstong, $2,300 to Edwards. The CEO of Stratus Properties.
Ben and Melanie Barnes, $2,300 each to Richardson, Clinton, and Dodd; she gave $2,300 to Obama. This is on top of the donations that the former lieutenant governor and his wife made to Joe Biden's campaign
Blaine Bull, $1,000 to Richardson. Founding partner of ViaNovo and founding officer of Public Strategies.
Becky Beaver, $1,000 to Obama and $500 to Clinton. Divorce lawyer to the stars.
Lucius Bunton, $2,300 to Edwards. Former U.S. District Court Judge.
Kent Caperton, $1,000 to Richardson, in addition to his Dodd and Biden donations. Former Democratic state senator.
Kerry Cammack, $2,100 to McCain. Lawyer, Karl Rove pal, and husband of Texas Supreme Court Justice Harriet O'Neill.
Sophia Collier, $1,000 to Clinton. Companion of King Ranch kin Chula Reynolds.
Ken DeAngelis, $1,000 to Clinton. Founder and general partner at Austin Ventures.
Jeff Eller, $2,300 to Richardson. Public Strategies president and CEO who worked in Clinton White House.
Gary Farmer, $2,300 to Guiliani. In addition to the $$ he gave to McCain.
Neal "Buddy" Jones, $2,000 to Guiliani and $1,000 to Richardson. The wily, silken lobbyist and co-founder of HillCo Partners in a practical display of bipartisanship.
Tommy Jacks, $500 to Clinton. Personal injury lawyer.
Dean McWilliams, $2,300 to Huckabee. Like his wife, a big-bucks lobbyist who's loving on the former Arkansas governor.
William and Carrin Patman, $2,300 to Clinton. She is a lawyer; he is a former state senator and son of the late Congressman Wright Patman.
Jeff Sandefer, $2,100 to Romney. Entrepreneur and founder of Acton MBA program.
Scott Sayers, $1,000 to Guiliani. Consigliere to Ben Crenshaw.
John Schweitzer, $2,000 to Guiliani. Money man with fingers in nearly pot.
George Shipley, $2,300 to Clinton and Edwards. "Democratic political consultant" doesn't really do him justice, does it?
Broadus Spivey, $2,300 to Edwards. Powerful, well-respected trial lawyer.
James Street, $2,300 to Edwards. Still-venerated UT quarterback.
Larry Temple, $1,000 to Edwards. LBJ pal and aide; big supporter of UT.
John and Julie Thornton, $2,300 each to Obama and $2,300 to Clinton. Austin Ventures general partner and arts patron wife (the sister of TEXAS MONTHLY senior editor Nate Blakeslee) have long played the big-time Democratic donor game.
Bruce Todd, $500 to Clinton. Former Austin mayor whose wife is the daughter of the late George Christian, press secretary to LBJ.
Follow the Money: 77002, 77019, 77006, and 77027
From our executive editor Mimi Swartz, who knows her hometown of Houston better than just about anyone:
Dan Arnold, $1,000 to Romney. Old-line power broker and board member par excellence.
Scott Atlas, $1,000 to Clinton. New-line power broker, former V&E partner, husband of Federal judge Nancy Atlas.
Jack S. Blanton, $2,300 to Romney. Oilman, arts patron, fomer chair of the UT board of regents, Houston Endowment mainstay.
Ernie Cockrell $2,000 to Romney. Oilman, Methodist hospital board member.
Rufus Comier, $1,000 to Clinton. First African American partner at Baker Botts; wife Yvonne is a major socialite, on best-dressed lists.
Harry Godfrey, $2,300 to Clinton. The Godfrey in Sussman & Godfrey.
Mavis Kelsey, $2,300 to McCain. Old-money attorney whose family members were founding donors to the Kelsey-Seybold Clinic.
Meredith Long, $2,100 to Giuliani. Art dealer who is married to a Cullen.
Frank Lidell, $2,000 to McCain. Name partner in Liddell Sapp law firm
Diana Marshal, $1,000 to Clinton. Very successful trial lawyer.
Richard Mithoff, $2,300 to Edwards, $1,000 to Clinton. He is a protege of the King of Torts, Joe Jamail, and a highly successful lawyer in his own right.
Harry Reasoner, $1,000 each to Richardson and Clinton. Former managing partner of Vinson & Elkins.
Matt Simmons, $2,300 to Romney. Energy adviser to the world.
Gerald Smith, $2,300 to Obama. Investment banker; African American community patron and leader.
Michael Zilkha, $2,300 to Obama. Investor, wind energy promoter, heavy hitting gadfly.
Harry and Rose Cullen, $2,300 each to Giuliani. Old oil money.
Anthony and Elizabeth DeLuca, $2,300 each to Romney. Energy investors.
Joe Dilg, $2,300 to Romney. Managing partner, V&E.
Jonathon and Marita Fairbanks, $2,300 each to Romney. He is a zillionaire oilman and arts patron; she has Fresh Arts website.
Meg Goodman, $2,300 to Guiliani. Heiress to air conditioning coil fortune.
Melanie Gray, $2,300 each to Clinton and Obama. Power broker, arts patron, attorney who brought the Enron bankruptcy to her firm, Weil Gotshal.
John and Karen Hoffmeister, $2,100 each to Giuliani and $2,100 each to Clinton. He is the CEO of Shell.
John Hill, $2,ooo to McCain. Former state attorney general and Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice.
Nancy and Rich Kinder, $2,100 each to Giuliani. He's the former Enron #2 who left before the trouble started and is now the billionaire CEO of Kinder-Morgan. Major fundraisers for W.
W. John O'Neil, $2,300 to Romney. Mr. Swift Boat himself.
John O'Quinn, $2,300 to Edwards. Legendary -- and legendarily controversial -- plaintiff's lawyer.
Harry and Karen Pinson, $2,300 to Obama. He's VP of Menil Board; she's a regular in the social columns.
Arthur Schecter, $2,300 to Hilary, $1,000 to Edwards. Former Clinton ambassador to the Bahamas.
Steve and Ellen Sussman, $2,300 each to Hilary; he also gave $2,300 to Edwards. He is the Susman in Susman Godfrey.
Robert Mosbacher, $2,300 to McCain. Loyal to Bush ... 41. Was U.S. Secretary of Commerce.
L.E. Simmons, $2,300 to Romney. Head of SCF partners, energy advisers and investors.
Mark White, $2,300 to Richardson. Former governor of Texas.
Tilman and Paige Fertitta, $2,300 each t0 Giuliani. Landry's/Golden Nugget chief exec gave very lavish party for Bill Clinton during second term. Always hedges his bets.
Dan Arnold, $1,000 to Romney. Old-line power broker and board member par excellence.
Scott Atlas, $1,000 to Clinton. New-line power broker, former V&E partner, husband of Federal judge Nancy Atlas.
Jack S. Blanton, $2,300 to Romney. Oilman, arts patron, fomer chair of the UT board of regents, Houston Endowment mainstay.
Ernie Cockrell $2,000 to Romney. Oilman, Methodist hospital board member.
Rufus Comier, $1,000 to Clinton. First African American partner at Baker Botts; wife Yvonne is a major socialite, on best-dressed lists.
Harry Godfrey, $2,300 to Clinton. The Godfrey in Sussman & Godfrey.
Mavis Kelsey, $2,300 to McCain. Old-money attorney whose family members were founding donors to the Kelsey-Seybold Clinic.
Meredith Long, $2,100 to Giuliani. Art dealer who is married to a Cullen.
Frank Lidell, $2,000 to McCain. Name partner in Liddell Sapp law firm
Diana Marshal, $1,000 to Clinton. Very successful trial lawyer.
Richard Mithoff, $2,300 to Edwards, $1,000 to Clinton. He is a protege of the King of Torts, Joe Jamail, and a highly successful lawyer in his own right.
Harry Reasoner, $1,000 each to Richardson and Clinton. Former managing partner of Vinson & Elkins.
Matt Simmons, $2,300 to Romney. Energy adviser to the world.
Gerald Smith, $2,300 to Obama. Investment banker; African American community patron and leader.
Michael Zilkha, $2,300 to Obama. Investor, wind energy promoter, heavy hitting gadfly.
Harry and Rose Cullen, $2,300 each to Giuliani. Old oil money.
Anthony and Elizabeth DeLuca, $2,300 each to Romney. Energy investors.
Joe Dilg, $2,300 to Romney. Managing partner, V&E.
Jonathon and Marita Fairbanks, $2,300 each to Romney. He is a zillionaire oilman and arts patron; she has Fresh Arts website.
Meg Goodman, $2,300 to Guiliani. Heiress to air conditioning coil fortune.
Melanie Gray, $2,300 each to Clinton and Obama. Power broker, arts patron, attorney who brought the Enron bankruptcy to her firm, Weil Gotshal.
John and Karen Hoffmeister, $2,100 each to Giuliani and $2,100 each to Clinton. He is the CEO of Shell.
John Hill, $2,ooo to McCain. Former state attorney general and Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice.
Nancy and Rich Kinder, $2,100 each to Giuliani. He's the former Enron #2 who left before the trouble started and is now the billionaire CEO of Kinder-Morgan. Major fundraisers for W.
W. John O'Neil, $2,300 to Romney. Mr. Swift Boat himself.
John O'Quinn, $2,300 to Edwards. Legendary -- and legendarily controversial -- plaintiff's lawyer.
Harry and Karen Pinson, $2,300 to Obama. He's VP of Menil Board; she's a regular in the social columns.
Arthur Schecter, $2,300 to Hilary, $1,000 to Edwards. Former Clinton ambassador to the Bahamas.
Steve and Ellen Sussman, $2,300 each to Hilary; he also gave $2,300 to Edwards. He is the Susman in Susman Godfrey.
Robert Mosbacher, $2,300 to McCain. Loyal to Bush ... 41. Was U.S. Secretary of Commerce.
L.E. Simmons, $2,300 to Romney. Head of SCF partners, energy advisers and investors.
Mark White, $2,300 to Richardson. Former governor of Texas.
Tilman and Paige Fertitta, $2,300 each t0 Giuliani. Landry's/Golden Nugget chief exec gave very lavish party for Bill Clinton during second term. Always hedges his bets.
House: No Objection To Seven Senate Conferees
Appropriations Chairman Warren Chisum confirmed that Senate Finance Chair Steve Ogden last week broached the subject of bringing seven Senate members to the budget conference committee.
"I told him I'm okay with that. I'm happy for the lieutenant governor to appoint seven," Chisum said. "Ya'll run your side and we'll run our side. We're happy for them to bring as many people as they want."
House rules call for 5 conferees, Chisum noted. But if the Senate brings more members, "it's semantics," he said. As the conference committee goes through each line of the budget, the conferees choose to "go with the House, go with the Senate" or work out a compromise. To Chisum's point of view, seven Senate conferees simply means that Ogden will have more members to confer with.
"All it means is we'll add two more lines for them to sign the conference committee report," Chisum said.
Ogden said that the expanded number was being considered "to accommodate all the diversity in the Senate." He noted that Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst will make the final decision, which could be announced as early as today.
"I told him I'm okay with that. I'm happy for the lieutenant governor to appoint seven," Chisum said. "Ya'll run your side and we'll run our side. We're happy for them to bring as many people as they want."
House rules call for 5 conferees, Chisum noted. But if the Senate brings more members, "it's semantics," he said. As the conference committee goes through each line of the budget, the conferees choose to "go with the House, go with the Senate" or work out a compromise. To Chisum's point of view, seven Senate conferees simply means that Ogden will have more members to confer with.
"All it means is we'll add two more lines for them to sign the conference committee report," Chisum said.
Ogden said that the expanded number was being considered "to accommodate all the diversity in the Senate." He noted that Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst will make the final decision, which could be announced as early as today.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Follow the Money: 78703, 78746, and 78731
The New York Times has a fun feature online: a searchable database of donors to the many presidential candidates through March 31, 2007. Over the next day or two I'll try to post comments about the appearance of various names in one candidate's camp or another -- or several camps -- as I peruse the key zip codes around Texas where interesting folks live. Let's start with Austin (the easiest, since I know it the best) and the Tarrytown/Pemberton, Westlake, and Highland Park neighborhoods (the highest concentrations of power players).
Ken Aboussie, $2,300 (the maximum donation allowed) to Rudy Guiliani. The nephew of retired Chief Justice Marilyn Aboussie, of the Third District Court of Appeals, is actively organizing for the former New York mayor.
Ann Butler, $1,000 each to Guiliani and John McCain. The wife of former Austin mayor Roy Butler is hedging her bet (and she's not the only one, as you'll see).
Ben and Melanie Barnes, $2,300 each to Joe Biden. The former lieutenant governor said in 2003 that he would have supported Biden over John Kerry for the Democratic presidential nomination in '04 had the former run in the primary against the latter. The U.S. senator from Delaware and the "51st senator," as Barnes is sometimes called, are old friends.
Phillip Bobbit, $500 to Hillary Clinton. U.T. law professor and LBJ nephew.
Cathy Bonner, $2,300 to Clinton. Ann Richards confidante and former executive director of the Texas Department of Commerce.
Sally Brown, $500 to Barack Obama. The wife of U.T. football coach Mack Brown.
Michael DiLeo, $500 to Bill Richardson. Writer and son-in-law of Laredo ranching patriarch Radcliffe Killam.
Mandy Dealey, $1,000 to John Edwards. Kin to the Belo/Dallas Morning News Dealeys.
Steve Goode, $1,000 to Edwards. U.T. law professor who was interim dean after Bill Powers was named the university's president.
Deborah Green, $1,000 to Clinton. Fun-loving and well-heeled member of various non-profit boards; ex-wife of Dell general counsel Tom Green.
Nancy Harper, $2,300 to Guiliani. Capitol Chevrolet poobah.
Kate and Robert Hersch, $2,300 each to Obama. The Mastodon Ventures head and his wife are emerging non-profit mainstays and gala co-chair types.
James and Patty Huffines, $2,100 each to McCain. The chair of the U.T. board of regents, Rick Perry confidante, and Plains Capital Bank head and his wife, a director at Public Strategies Inc., are big-time supporters of the Arizona senator.
Gabrielle Kuyper Sheshunoff, $1,000 to Richardson. Wealthy icon of West Austin high society.
Cathy Lippincott, $1,000 to Clinton. One-half of the couple that owns the popular Mexican restaurant Guero's.
Janet and Rocky Mountain, $2,300 each to Guiliani. She's the executive director of the Michael and Susan Dell Foundation; he's a retired top Dell exec.
Chris Mattsson and John McHale, $2,100 each to Edwards. Voguish supporters of the arts and progressive political causes who put big bucks into Democratic efforts to win back the White House in 2004. He's a serious tech community player.
Andrea McWilliams, $2,300 to Mike Huckabee. Big bucks lobbyist who was a Bush Pioneer.
Ken Oden, $2,100 to Clinton. Former Travis County Attorney.
Kirk and Amy Rudy, $2,300 to Obama. Endeavor real estate CEO who developed the new Domain shopping center and his socially-connected wife.
Rose Spector, $250 to Richardson. Former Texas Supreme Court Justice.
Roy and Mary Spence, $2,300 each to Clinton. The adman -- the S in GSD&M -- is a longtime pal of the senator and the ex-prez and is doing media work for the campaign.
James Taylor, $2,300 each to Richardson and Obama. The Via Novo founding partner and former Public Strategies founding director is a hedger.
Judy Trabulsi, $2,300 to Clinton. GSD&M co-founder. The agency that plays together...
Liz Watson, $2,000 to Edwards. Wife of Texas Senator and former Austin mayor Kirk Watson.
George Willeford, $1,000 to McCain. Husband of former Ambassador and Bush pal Pam Willeford.
Donna and Phillip Berber, $2,300 each to Edwards and Obama, $2,000 to Clinton, and $1,900 to Edwards. World-class philanthropists (A Glimmer of Hope Foundation).
Cassandra Carr, $1,000 to Richardson. Public Strategies senior advisor.
Kent Caperton, $2,300 each to Biden and Chris Dodd. Former state senator and partner in the Ben Barnes Group.
Liz Carpenter, $1,000 to Clinton. LBJ press aide.
Victor Emmanuel, $250 to Obama. Birder to the stars.
Gary Farmer, $2,300 to McCain. President of Heritage Title Co.
John and Lezlie Glade, $2,300 each to Barack Obama. Social butterflies; he's the managing director of Tejas Securities.
Laurie and Ross Garber, $2,300 each to Obama and $2,000 to Clinton. The former CEO of Vignette and his wife are active and involved Democratic donors.
John and Tamra Gorman, $2273.21 and $2,300, respectively, to Obama. He's the CEO of Tejas Securities and a confidante of the Illinois senator's.
Tom Green, $2,300 to Clinton. Dell general counsel.
Diane Henson, $500 to Clinton. Lone Democratic Justice on the Third District Court of Appeals.
Tommie and Lynn Meredith, $2,300 each to Richardson, Obama, Edwards, Clinton. Their children made various gifts to Clinton, Obama, and Edwards as well. No one bundles quite like the former Dell CFO and his equally impressive bride.
Deborah Peel, $2,300 to Clinton. Big Kerry fundraiser who is among the nation's strongest patient privacy advocates.
Kevin and Debra Rollins, $2,300 each to Romney. The recently departed Dell CEO is a Mormon.
Richard and Jill Salwen, $2,300 each to Guiliani. He's a former Dell VP and corporate secretary; they were $100,000 donors to Rick Perry's re-election campaign in '06.
Pete Winstead, $1,000 to Romney. Powerful downtown lawyer.
Alexa and Blaine Wesner, $2,300 each to Obama. He's a player at Austin Ventures; they're hip, social, and community minded.
Marc and Suzanne Winkelman, $2,300 each to Edwards, Clinton, and Obama. Not so much hedging as continuing their tradition of supporting big-time Democratic candidates.
Mary Yancy, $2,000 to Obama. A pillar of West Austin society (and a fixture in party pics).
Linda Aaker, $1,000 to Clinton. Wife of former land commissioner and Assistant U.S. Interior Secretary Bob Armstrong.
Ada Anderson, $2,300 to Obama. Iconic African-American educator.
Steve Bickerstaff, $2,100 to Edwards. Lawyer, law prof, and author.
Mark McKinnon, $2,300 to McCain. The Democrat turned Bushie, now vice-chairman of Public Strategies, is working for the senator's campaign.
Ralph Wayne, $1,000 to Guiliani. Capitol fixture, tort reform advocate, president and CEO of the Texas Civil Justice League.
Wyeth Weideman, $2,300 each to Richardson, Dodd, and Biden. Youthful ward of the Dick Grayson-variety to Ben Barnes's Bruce Wayne.
Ken Aboussie, $2,300 (the maximum donation allowed) to Rudy Guiliani. The nephew of retired Chief Justice Marilyn Aboussie, of the Third District Court of Appeals, is actively organizing for the former New York mayor.
Ann Butler, $1,000 each to Guiliani and John McCain. The wife of former Austin mayor Roy Butler is hedging her bet (and she's not the only one, as you'll see).
Ben and Melanie Barnes, $2,300 each to Joe Biden. The former lieutenant governor said in 2003 that he would have supported Biden over John Kerry for the Democratic presidential nomination in '04 had the former run in the primary against the latter. The U.S. senator from Delaware and the "51st senator," as Barnes is sometimes called, are old friends.
Phillip Bobbit, $500 to Hillary Clinton. U.T. law professor and LBJ nephew.
Cathy Bonner, $2,300 to Clinton. Ann Richards confidante and former executive director of the Texas Department of Commerce.
Sally Brown, $500 to Barack Obama. The wife of U.T. football coach Mack Brown.
Michael DiLeo, $500 to Bill Richardson. Writer and son-in-law of Laredo ranching patriarch Radcliffe Killam.
Mandy Dealey, $1,000 to John Edwards. Kin to the Belo/Dallas Morning News Dealeys.
Steve Goode, $1,000 to Edwards. U.T. law professor who was interim dean after Bill Powers was named the university's president.
Deborah Green, $1,000 to Clinton. Fun-loving and well-heeled member of various non-profit boards; ex-wife of Dell general counsel Tom Green.
Nancy Harper, $2,300 to Guiliani. Capitol Chevrolet poobah.
Kate and Robert Hersch, $2,300 each to Obama. The Mastodon Ventures head and his wife are emerging non-profit mainstays and gala co-chair types.
James and Patty Huffines, $2,100 each to McCain. The chair of the U.T. board of regents, Rick Perry confidante, and Plains Capital Bank head and his wife, a director at Public Strategies Inc., are big-time supporters of the Arizona senator.
Gabrielle Kuyper Sheshunoff, $1,000 to Richardson. Wealthy icon of West Austin high society.
Cathy Lippincott, $1,000 to Clinton. One-half of the couple that owns the popular Mexican restaurant Guero's.
Janet and Rocky Mountain, $2,300 each to Guiliani. She's the executive director of the Michael and Susan Dell Foundation; he's a retired top Dell exec.
Chris Mattsson and John McHale, $2,100 each to Edwards. Voguish supporters of the arts and progressive political causes who put big bucks into Democratic efforts to win back the White House in 2004. He's a serious tech community player.
Andrea McWilliams, $2,300 to Mike Huckabee. Big bucks lobbyist who was a Bush Pioneer.
Ken Oden, $2,100 to Clinton. Former Travis County Attorney.
Kirk and Amy Rudy, $2,300 to Obama. Endeavor real estate CEO who developed the new Domain shopping center and his socially-connected wife.
Rose Spector, $250 to Richardson. Former Texas Supreme Court Justice.
Roy and Mary Spence, $2,300 each to Clinton. The adman -- the S in GSD&M -- is a longtime pal of the senator and the ex-prez and is doing media work for the campaign.
James Taylor, $2,300 each to Richardson and Obama. The Via Novo founding partner and former Public Strategies founding director is a hedger.
Judy Trabulsi, $2,300 to Clinton. GSD&M co-founder. The agency that plays together...
Liz Watson, $2,000 to Edwards. Wife of Texas Senator and former Austin mayor Kirk Watson.
George Willeford, $1,000 to McCain. Husband of former Ambassador and Bush pal Pam Willeford.
Donna and Phillip Berber, $2,300 each to Edwards and Obama, $2,000 to Clinton, and $1,900 to Edwards. World-class philanthropists (A Glimmer of Hope Foundation).
Cassandra Carr, $1,000 to Richardson. Public Strategies senior advisor.
Kent Caperton, $2,300 each to Biden and Chris Dodd. Former state senator and partner in the Ben Barnes Group.
Liz Carpenter, $1,000 to Clinton. LBJ press aide.
Victor Emmanuel, $250 to Obama. Birder to the stars.
Gary Farmer, $2,300 to McCain. President of Heritage Title Co.
John and Lezlie Glade, $2,300 each to Barack Obama. Social butterflies; he's the managing director of Tejas Securities.
Laurie and Ross Garber, $2,300 each to Obama and $2,000 to Clinton. The former CEO of Vignette and his wife are active and involved Democratic donors.
John and Tamra Gorman, $2273.21 and $2,300, respectively, to Obama. He's the CEO of Tejas Securities and a confidante of the Illinois senator's.
Tom Green, $2,300 to Clinton. Dell general counsel.
Diane Henson, $500 to Clinton. Lone Democratic Justice on the Third District Court of Appeals.
Tommie and Lynn Meredith, $2,300 each to Richardson, Obama, Edwards, Clinton. Their children made various gifts to Clinton, Obama, and Edwards as well. No one bundles quite like the former Dell CFO and his equally impressive bride.
Deborah Peel, $2,300 to Clinton. Big Kerry fundraiser who is among the nation's strongest patient privacy advocates.
Kevin and Debra Rollins, $2,300 each to Romney. The recently departed Dell CEO is a Mormon.
Richard and Jill Salwen, $2,300 each to Guiliani. He's a former Dell VP and corporate secretary; they were $100,000 donors to Rick Perry's re-election campaign in '06.
Pete Winstead, $1,000 to Romney. Powerful downtown lawyer.
Alexa and Blaine Wesner, $2,300 each to Obama. He's a player at Austin Ventures; they're hip, social, and community minded.
Marc and Suzanne Winkelman, $2,300 each to Edwards, Clinton, and Obama. Not so much hedging as continuing their tradition of supporting big-time Democratic candidates.
Mary Yancy, $2,000 to Obama. A pillar of West Austin society (and a fixture in party pics).
Linda Aaker, $1,000 to Clinton. Wife of former land commissioner and Assistant U.S. Interior Secretary Bob Armstrong.
Ada Anderson, $2,300 to Obama. Iconic African-American educator.
Steve Bickerstaff, $2,100 to Edwards. Lawyer, law prof, and author.
Mark McKinnon, $2,300 to McCain. The Democrat turned Bushie, now vice-chairman of Public Strategies, is working for the senator's campaign.
Ralph Wayne, $1,000 to Guiliani. Capitol fixture, tort reform advocate, president and CEO of the Texas Civil Justice League.
Wyeth Weideman, $2,300 each to Richardson, Dodd, and Biden. Youthful ward of the Dick Grayson-variety to Ben Barnes's Bruce Wayne.
See Your Five and Raise You Two
Lieutenant Governor Dewhurst has come up with an imaginative, or perhaps bizarre, response to Senate conservatives who are still unhappy about not having representation on the appropriations conference committee: add two additional conferees. The only flaw, aside from changing the rules in midstream, is that Speaker Craddick would have to do the same. The story is that Steve Ogden was dispatched to the House to talk to head budgetwriter Warren Chisum about the proposal. No word yet on the response. I'll take the under.
Law Enforecement Overwhelmed by Overdose Deaths
About four years ago, an investigator in the coroner's office in Calcasieu Parish (Lake Charles) began noticing some disturbing evidence whenever he arrived at the scene of a death due to drug overdose: lots of empty prescription drug bottles for addictive painkillers, all from the same pharmacies and same doctors in Southeast Texas.
At the same time, some 35 miles away, a related phenomenon caught the eye of Orange County Sheriff Mike White. A new pain management clinic in town was drawing fifty to seventy cars a day. Lines formed outside the building, even on rainy days. On a hunch, White began gathering evidence about hydrocodone prescriptions filled in his town of 18,000 residents. In 2004, 1.5 million prescriptions were filled for the highly addictive painkiller. By last year, that number had climbed to 8 million prescriptions.
After a phone call from Calcasieu Parish authorities and other conversations with law enforcement authorities in Harris and Jefferson Counties, White realized his little town on the bayou was a key part of a flourishing trade in highly addictive prescription drugs dispensed by questionable clinics and pharmacies operating along the I-10 corridor from Houston to Louisiana.
Acting on the mounting concerns of law enforcement authorities, Sen. Tommy Williams won passage today from the Senate Health and Human Services Committee requiring doctors to report to a state database all prescriptions for Schedule III drugs, which include what law enforcement authorities call the Trifecta Cocktail: Vicodan (hydrocodone), Xanax (alprazolam) and Soma (carisprodal). The information will be available to doctors who want to make sure their patients are not obtaining multiple prescriptions.
While the Texas Board of Medical Examiners and the State Pharmacy Board can revoke the licenses of professionals acting unethically or illegally, law enforcement officials say the state agencies are ill-equipped to take on the flourishing trade in prescription drugs that has sprung up on the I-10 corridor.
Highway patrol officers are stopping increasing numbers of DUI offenders, often in cars filled with individuals in possession of multiple three-month prescriptions, all issued on the same day from different pain management clinics.
Lt. Billy Chapman of the Calcasieu Parish Narcotics Task Force visited Houston yesterday to see how the operation worked. An undercover officer went inside a clinic, filled out a few forms and paid $70 in cash. A doctor appeared and asked him where he felt pain. In his neck, the officer replied. On a scale of one to 10, how bad is it? the doctor asked. About eight,the undercover officer replied. The doctor turned around and faxed a form to a pharmacy, conveniently located across the street. The officer went to the pharmacy, a squalid office with blacked out windows and a retractable drawer were he was instructed to place his identification. Then a voice informed him that they had just run out of drugs, and told him to proceed to a pharmacy down the street. The officer obeyed, and in less than half an hour, he was in possession of three months' worth of pills with a street value of $1,400.
Meanwhile, his back-up officers saw two cars with Louisiana plates deliver about eight young men in their twenties, all of whom filled prescriptions. Fliers advertising the pain clinics promise that patients do not have to supply their medical records "until the second visit."
The statistics are astonishing:
Jefferson County attributed eight deaths to hydrocodone overdose in 2005. Last year, the county experienced 58 deaths due to hydrocodone abuse.
Orange County's drug deaths account for 16 percent of all fatalities, up from 10 percent two years ago.
Calcasieu Parish logged 34 drug overdose deaths in 2004, 42 in 2005 and 50 in 2006. So far this year, the parish has had 20 overdose deaths, including 5 just in the last week.
White says the drug trade is affecting all age groups, from "high school to grandma," but the largest group seems to be middle-aged, working people. In fact, employers in Orange have brought him in to give training seminars to supervisors on how to recognize, and deal with, addicted or abusing workers.
At the same time, some 35 miles away, a related phenomenon caught the eye of Orange County Sheriff Mike White. A new pain management clinic in town was drawing fifty to seventy cars a day. Lines formed outside the building, even on rainy days. On a hunch, White began gathering evidence about hydrocodone prescriptions filled in his town of 18,000 residents. In 2004, 1.5 million prescriptions were filled for the highly addictive painkiller. By last year, that number had climbed to 8 million prescriptions.
After a phone call from Calcasieu Parish authorities and other conversations with law enforcement authorities in Harris and Jefferson Counties, White realized his little town on the bayou was a key part of a flourishing trade in highly addictive prescription drugs dispensed by questionable clinics and pharmacies operating along the I-10 corridor from Houston to Louisiana.
Acting on the mounting concerns of law enforcement authorities, Sen. Tommy Williams won passage today from the Senate Health and Human Services Committee requiring doctors to report to a state database all prescriptions for Schedule III drugs, which include what law enforcement authorities call the Trifecta Cocktail: Vicodan (hydrocodone), Xanax (alprazolam) and Soma (carisprodal). The information will be available to doctors who want to make sure their patients are not obtaining multiple prescriptions.
While the Texas Board of Medical Examiners and the State Pharmacy Board can revoke the licenses of professionals acting unethically or illegally, law enforcement officials say the state agencies are ill-equipped to take on the flourishing trade in prescription drugs that has sprung up on the I-10 corridor.
Highway patrol officers are stopping increasing numbers of DUI offenders, often in cars filled with individuals in possession of multiple three-month prescriptions, all issued on the same day from different pain management clinics.
Lt. Billy Chapman of the Calcasieu Parish Narcotics Task Force visited Houston yesterday to see how the operation worked. An undercover officer went inside a clinic, filled out a few forms and paid $70 in cash. A doctor appeared and asked him where he felt pain. In his neck, the officer replied. On a scale of one to 10, how bad is it? the doctor asked. About eight,the undercover officer replied. The doctor turned around and faxed a form to a pharmacy, conveniently located across the street. The officer went to the pharmacy, a squalid office with blacked out windows and a retractable drawer were he was instructed to place his identification. Then a voice informed him that they had just run out of drugs, and told him to proceed to a pharmacy down the street. The officer obeyed, and in less than half an hour, he was in possession of three months' worth of pills with a street value of $1,400.
Meanwhile, his back-up officers saw two cars with Louisiana plates deliver about eight young men in their twenties, all of whom filled prescriptions. Fliers advertising the pain clinics promise that patients do not have to supply their medical records "until the second visit."
The statistics are astonishing:
Jefferson County attributed eight deaths to hydrocodone overdose in 2005. Last year, the county experienced 58 deaths due to hydrocodone abuse.
Orange County's drug deaths account for 16 percent of all fatalities, up from 10 percent two years ago.
Calcasieu Parish logged 34 drug overdose deaths in 2004, 42 in 2005 and 50 in 2006. So far this year, the parish has had 20 overdose deaths, including 5 just in the last week.
White says the drug trade is affecting all age groups, from "high school to grandma," but the largest group seems to be middle-aged, working people. In fact, employers in Orange have brought him in to give training seminars to supervisors on how to recognize, and deal with, addicted or abusing workers.
What Voter Fraud?
The Picture ID bill, infamously carried by Mary Denny last session, has been delayed for a trip back to committee to clean up points of order. Perhaps we should expand our Ten Worst list to include staff; they can't seem to get a bill through the process without mistakes. Or maybe Craddick should appoint the Bill Clean-Up committee and put Talton, Dunnam, and Thompson on it.
Back to substance. This is a bad old bill. It was part of a nationwide effort, spearheaded by Karl Rove, to suppress the turnout of racial minorities (who are less likely to have picture IDs than more affluent voters). It passed the House two years ago only to run afoul of the two-thirds rule in the Senate and may do both again. Republicans have told me that this is the most-polled bill of the session. What warped priorities the leadership has.
The U.S. Election Assistance Commission reported in December 06 (see page 10) that in its wide reaching intervies of election officials and scholars, "Many asserted that the impersonation of voters is probably the least frequent type of fraud because it is the most likely to be discovered, there are stiff penalties associated with this type of fraud, and it is an insufficient means of influencing an election.
I'm not being partisan about this. I think the Democrats' claims that Bush stole the 04 election with voter fraud are unjustified. I hope that this session produces a bill calling for a paper trail for all voting machines.
From Greg Abbott on down, Rs should be ashamed of themselves for pursuing this anti-small-d-democratic bill.
Back to substance. This is a bad old bill. It was part of a nationwide effort, spearheaded by Karl Rove, to suppress the turnout of racial minorities (who are less likely to have picture IDs than more affluent voters). It passed the House two years ago only to run afoul of the two-thirds rule in the Senate and may do both again. Republicans have told me that this is the most-polled bill of the session. What warped priorities the leadership has.
The U.S. Election Assistance Commission reported in December 06 (see page 10) that in its wide reaching intervies of election officials and scholars, "Many asserted that the impersonation of voters is probably the least frequent type of fraud because it is the most likely to be discovered, there are stiff penalties associated with this type of fraud, and it is an insufficient means of influencing an election.
I'm not being partisan about this. I think the Democrats' claims that Bush stole the 04 election with voter fraud are unjustified. I hope that this session produces a bill calling for a paper trail for all voting machines.
From Greg Abbott on down, Rs should be ashamed of themselves for pursuing this anti-small-d-democratic bill.
Craddick Names Budget Conferees
No surprises: Chisum, Gattis, Guillen, Kolkhorst, Turner.
The Democrats ran with four motions to instruct the conferees. All failed. The biennial plea not to tie the hands of the conferees was made. Herrero asked that full funding for the CHIP bill, including twelve months eligibility, be retained. Heflin wanted the conferees to defend his rider prohibiting funds for school vouchers. Noriega sought to instruct on his teacher pay raise amendment. In the discussion, he was asked how many of the conferees had voted for his amendment. At that point, the conferees had yet to be named, and Noriega said, "Who knows? The speaker may put me on the conference committee." At that instant, WHACK! Craddick's gavel fell to indicate that the member's time had expired. In more ways than one. "I guess that's my answer," Noriega said. Chisum's motion to table prevailed, 84-54. Burnam wanted full funding for parks. That too went down, 89-44. The Republican caucus met before the House convened, and the word was given to stick with Chisum.
I don't have the vote for the vouchers instruction yet--it's not up online--but it will be interesting to see how the Parent PAC Republicans voted on it. Unlike merit pay, which is not a Parent PAC issue, vouchers is probably the biggest single issue on the Parent PAC agenda. Readers know, of course, that members of the majority are supposed to stick with the chair on procedural issues, but voters might not be so understanding.
The Democrats ran with four motions to instruct the conferees. All failed. The biennial plea not to tie the hands of the conferees was made. Herrero asked that full funding for the CHIP bill, including twelve months eligibility, be retained. Heflin wanted the conferees to defend his rider prohibiting funds for school vouchers. Noriega sought to instruct on his teacher pay raise amendment. In the discussion, he was asked how many of the conferees had voted for his amendment. At that point, the conferees had yet to be named, and Noriega said, "Who knows? The speaker may put me on the conference committee." At that instant, WHACK! Craddick's gavel fell to indicate that the member's time had expired. In more ways than one. "I guess that's my answer," Noriega said. Chisum's motion to table prevailed, 84-54. Burnam wanted full funding for parks. That too went down, 89-44. The Republican caucus met before the House convened, and the word was given to stick with Chisum.
I don't have the vote for the vouchers instruction yet--it's not up online--but it will be interesting to see how the Parent PAC Republicans voted on it. Unlike merit pay, which is not a Parent PAC issue, vouchers is probably the biggest single issue on the Parent PAC agenda. Readers know, of course, that members of the majority are supposed to stick with the chair on procedural issues, but voters might not be so understanding.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Why Can't We All Just Get Along?
I appreciate the time and length Senator Patrick took to reply to my post about his actions on the state budget. The point of my original post, which I think Patrick missed, is that you cannot legislate by press release. It appears that Senator Patrick and his staff took a great deal of time to comb the budget for savings. If he really wanted to have an impact on the process, he should have gone to a member of the Finance Committee with his suggestions and had that member offer amendments to realize the cuts. Or he could have offered his cuts as amendments during debate on the bill. By waiting to speak up until after the budget had been voted on, his work was for naught.
Reflecting on the debate, I think a revealing moment occurred in the Patrick/Whitmire exchange about the press. Whitmire exclaimed, "The press doesn't vote!" And Patrick replied, "This member of the press does!" Patrick is trying to serve two masters. You can't act as a member of the press while serving as a state senator. In the realm of journalism, Patrick's commentary on suggested savings would probably get good marks. But as a state senator, he should have worked within the legislative process if he really wanted to accomplish anything. Until he does, he will be an outcast among his colleagues.
Senator Patrick wrote that I incorrectly reported that he was the sole senator missing from the floor during the Dallas Imam's prayer. I never reported such a thing. My posts (see here and here) are saved in our March archives and I invite anyone interested to read for themselves. I simply described the events of the day, using several senators as sources. Perhaps he misread I quote I used from Sen. Shapiro, in which she mentioned that 28 of her fellow senators joined her in welcoming the Imam to the Senate.
On a different matter, I was too quick and too glib when I concluded my "Post Mortem" item with the remark that the press was still waiting to see Patrick's list of cuts. I was unaware that they had been released. Clearly, I could have gone to his office and asked for a copy. The proposed cuts and a response to them will be posted on this Web site today.
Reflecting on the debate, I think a revealing moment occurred in the Patrick/Whitmire exchange about the press. Whitmire exclaimed, "The press doesn't vote!" And Patrick replied, "This member of the press does!" Patrick is trying to serve two masters. You can't act as a member of the press while serving as a state senator. In the realm of journalism, Patrick's commentary on suggested savings would probably get good marks. But as a state senator, he should have worked within the legislative process if he really wanted to accomplish anything. Until he does, he will be an outcast among his colleagues.
Senator Patrick wrote that I incorrectly reported that he was the sole senator missing from the floor during the Dallas Imam's prayer. I never reported such a thing. My posts (see here and here) are saved in our March archives and I invite anyone interested to read for themselves. I simply described the events of the day, using several senators as sources. Perhaps he misread I quote I used from Sen. Shapiro, in which she mentioned that 28 of her fellow senators joined her in welcoming the Imam to the Senate.
On a different matter, I was too quick and too glib when I concluded my "Post Mortem" item with the remark that the press was still waiting to see Patrick's list of cuts. I was unaware that they had been released. Clearly, I could have gone to his office and asked for a copy. The proposed cuts and a response to them will be posted on this Web site today.
Patrick's Prunings: How to Save $3 Billion
Here is the list of Dan Patrick's proposed cuts from the Senate budget, totaling $3 billion. I should have posted this on Friday night, but I was fully occupied following my fantasy baseball team, the Capitol Punishers--how about Carlos Lee!--and didn't check my e-mail. It is my intention to research these items and evaluate Senator Patrick's choices. This will probably take a couple of days next week. I also invite readers to post their comments, pro or con, about individual budget cuts, particularly if you have some knowledge about some of these items.
The press release begins with a statement by Patrick:
AUSTIN ? On Tuesday, the Senate Finance Committee passed a $152 Billion budget. The budget, as recommended, increases spending by 10% over the next two year budget cycle. While Senator Patrick is not a member of the Senate Finance Committee and therefore was not involved in preparing the budget, he did gather information in just two days on ways the Legislature could save nearly $3 billion in state spending.
Furthermore, under this budget, Texas will spend just $110 million (or 0.07%) to secure our border. "I believe illegal immigration is driving much of our budget increases. Exploding health care and education costs have our budget in a bind. However, we are dedicating the equivalent of a budget hick-up to secure our border. Illegal immigration is an area of significant concern to a vast majority of Texans, and we are just tossing pocket change at the problem," Senator Patrick remarked.
"While each area we identified where the budget could be cut will most certainly have its supporters and detractors, I look at each one of these areas and have to ask two simple questions: Is this a critical role of government, and do I feel comfortable in taxing my constituents to fund it?," Senator Patrick questioned. Those areas Senator Patrick identified are:
Commission of the Arts (eliminate)
$4.7 Million
Validation: Arts are supported through private enterprise. Federal pass-through grants available to the state can be handled directly through the Texas Education Agency.
Fiscal Research and Studies (reduction)
$7.2 Million
Validation: Data collected has been of limited value. Moreover, publications produced through this program are often produced at high costs.
Energy Office (eliminate general revenue funding)
$2.7 Million
Validation: Funds seek to promote greater efficiency in government facilities. This is a federal initiative that should be funded fully with federal dollars.
Texas Enterprise Fund (eliminate)
$182 Million
Validation: Is it truly necessary to entice businesses to come to Texas with tax money, or are we masking our problems with regulatory and fiscal policies with government handouts?
Texas Emerging Technology Fund (eliminate)
$200 Million
Validation: Once again, is it truly necessary to entice businesses with tax money, or are we masking our problems with regulatory and fiscal policies with government handouts?
Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund (eliminate)
$5.8 Million
Validation: The Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund (TIF) tax was set to expire, but it appears it will live on in perpetuity.
State Office of Risk Management (reduction)
$2.4 Million
Validation: Administration costs equal 10% of claims paid. Administration costs need to be reduced to provide the cost savings.
Colonias Initiative (eliminate)
$1.1 Million
Validation: The Texas Secretary of State administers this program to promote services in areas typically inhabited by illegal immigrants.
Office of State-Federal Relations (eliminate)
$1.3 Million
Validation: Texas has two United States Senators and thirty-two United States Representatives to represent us in Washington. This program assumes they aren't able to represent Texas properly.
HIV/STD and Hepatitis C awareness (eliminate)
$296 Million
Validation: Resources are already available through schools, doctor's offices and health clinics.
TB, Hansen's and Refugee Health (eliminate)
$37.8 Million
Validation: These programs were created when tuberculosis and leprosy were a greater threat than they currently are.
Zoonotic diseases (eliminate)
$9 Million
Validation: Persons who work with animals should be personally responsible for preventing themselves from contracting diseases from those animals.
Abstinence education (eliminate)
$10.7 Million
Validation: This is a family education issue, not one to be mandated in public schools.
Substance abuse prevention and intervention (eliminate)
$122 Million
Validation: Substance abuse is illegal, still persons make the choice to violate the law. Information about substance abuse is widely available without state government spending.
The Student Success Initiatives (eliminate)
$823 Million
Validation: This initiative financially rewards failure in schools. There is sufficient funding for such programs in the Foundation School Program.
School Improvement and Support Programs (eliminate)
$318 Million
Validation: This initiative should be a constant under regular programs. There is sufficient funding for such programs in the Foundation School Program.
Educational Technology (eliminate)
$84 Million
Validation: The term "technology" is often used as an excuse to spend more government money. This program is not a departure from that movement.
Regional Education Service Centers (eliminate general revenue funding)
$43 Million
Validation: These centers are private businesses that are highly subsidized by the state.
Fifth Year Accounting Students (eliminate)
$1.1 Million
Validation: The accounting industry is healthy and graduates often well paid upon graduation. There is no reason accounting students need a subsidy more than students of any other subject.
Close the Gaps - Research (eliminate)
$8.4 Million
Validation: There is sufficient money available through private funds and the federal government.
Close the Gaps - Quality/Participation (eliminate)
$22.4 Million
Validation: Special funding for junior colleges that have redundant appropriations in other areas of the budget.
Special Item Support (eliminate)
$582 Million
Validation: Specialized programs at many universities that have little to do with education. Items such as economic development should not compete for our critical education dollars. These programs seem to encourage universities to create spending programs for the sake of spending money.
Public Integrity Unit - Travis County (eliminate)
$6.7 Million
Validation: Public officials can be investigated and prosecuted anywhere in the state. However, only the Travis County District Attorney receives state funding.
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (eliminate)
$72 Million
Validation: This agency was created just after the repeal of prohibition, and is no longer necessary. The functions of the TABC are covered by other law enforcement agencies and thus should be folded into those agencies.
Local Park Grants (eliminate)
$20 Million
Validation: It is the responsibility of local governments to fund construction and maintenance of local parks,not stte government.
Promote LP Gas Usage (eliminate)
$9 Million
Validation: LP Gas companies are much more capable and positioned to promote their business than the state.
Office of Rural Community Affairs (Merge with another agency; save general revenue funds
$5 Million
Validation: This office should be merged back into the Department of Housing and Community Affairs to save general revenues.
Office of Consumer Credit Commissioner (eliminate)
$8.4 Million
Validation: Competition regulates the industry and individuals benefit from attractive rates. There is no need for government interference in consumer choice.
Funeral Service Commission (eliminate)
$1.2 Million
Validation: De-regulate the funeral industry and eliminate the agency that limits competition and consumer choice.
Board of Professional Geoscientists (eliminate)
$858,000
Validation: The agency limits competition and consumer choice and there is little evidence the agency was or is necessary.
Department of Insurance (eliminate certain programs)
$37 Million
Validation: De-regulation would reduce insurance costs and be good for consumers. Funding to investigate fraud is still critical.
Loss Control Programs (eliminate)
$5.2 Million
Validation: Government should encourage private businesses to build sturdy structures, it should require those businesses to bear all the risks.
Total: $2,929,958,000
Senator Patrick has authored SB 1190, which would create a Texas Spending Commission to find waste, fraud and abuse in state government. The commission, modeled after President Reagan's Grace Commission, would have audit powers over state agencies so they could report to the Legislature ways to cut spending.
Editor's note: The Senate's budget (with the above spending) passed by a vote 26-5. Senator Patrick voted against the budget.
Editor's Note: This is the real editor. The italicized language, above, is part of Senator Patrick's press release.
The press release begins with a statement by Patrick:
AUSTIN ? On Tuesday, the Senate Finance Committee passed a $152 Billion budget. The budget, as recommended, increases spending by 10% over the next two year budget cycle. While Senator Patrick is not a member of the Senate Finance Committee and therefore was not involved in preparing the budget, he did gather information in just two days on ways the Legislature could save nearly $3 billion in state spending.
Furthermore, under this budget, Texas will spend just $110 million (or 0.07%) to secure our border. "I believe illegal immigration is driving much of our budget increases. Exploding health care and education costs have our budget in a bind. However, we are dedicating the equivalent of a budget hick-up to secure our border. Illegal immigration is an area of significant concern to a vast majority of Texans, and we are just tossing pocket change at the problem," Senator Patrick remarked.
"While each area we identified where the budget could be cut will most certainly have its supporters and detractors, I look at each one of these areas and have to ask two simple questions: Is this a critical role of government, and do I feel comfortable in taxing my constituents to fund it?," Senator Patrick questioned. Those areas Senator Patrick identified are:
Commission of the Arts (eliminate)
$4.7 Million
Validation: Arts are supported through private enterprise. Federal pass-through grants available to the state can be handled directly through the Texas Education Agency.
Fiscal Research and Studies (reduction)
$7.2 Million
Validation: Data collected has been of limited value. Moreover, publications produced through this program are often produced at high costs.
Energy Office (eliminate general revenue funding)
$2.7 Million
Validation: Funds seek to promote greater efficiency in government facilities. This is a federal initiative that should be funded fully with federal dollars.
Texas Enterprise Fund (eliminate)
$182 Million
Validation: Is it truly necessary to entice businesses to come to Texas with tax money, or are we masking our problems with regulatory and fiscal policies with government handouts?
Texas Emerging Technology Fund (eliminate)
$200 Million
Validation: Once again, is it truly necessary to entice businesses with tax money, or are we masking our problems with regulatory and fiscal policies with government handouts?
Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund (eliminate)
$5.8 Million
Validation: The Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund (TIF) tax was set to expire, but it appears it will live on in perpetuity.
State Office of Risk Management (reduction)
$2.4 Million
Validation: Administration costs equal 10% of claims paid. Administration costs need to be reduced to provide the cost savings.
Colonias Initiative (eliminate)
$1.1 Million
Validation: The Texas Secretary of State administers this program to promote services in areas typically inhabited by illegal immigrants.
Office of State-Federal Relations (eliminate)
$1.3 Million
Validation: Texas has two United States Senators and thirty-two United States Representatives to represent us in Washington. This program assumes they aren't able to represent Texas properly.
HIV/STD and Hepatitis C awareness (eliminate)
$296 Million
Validation: Resources are already available through schools, doctor's offices and health clinics.
TB, Hansen's and Refugee Health (eliminate)
$37.8 Million
Validation: These programs were created when tuberculosis and leprosy were a greater threat than they currently are.
Zoonotic diseases (eliminate)
$9 Million
Validation: Persons who work with animals should be personally responsible for preventing themselves from contracting diseases from those animals.
Abstinence education (eliminate)
$10.7 Million
Validation: This is a family education issue, not one to be mandated in public schools.
Substance abuse prevention and intervention (eliminate)
$122 Million
Validation: Substance abuse is illegal, still persons make the choice to violate the law. Information about substance abuse is widely available without state government spending.
The Student Success Initiatives (eliminate)
$823 Million
Validation: This initiative financially rewards failure in schools. There is sufficient funding for such programs in the Foundation School Program.
School Improvement and Support Programs (eliminate)
$318 Million
Validation: This initiative should be a constant under regular programs. There is sufficient funding for such programs in the Foundation School Program.
Educational Technology (eliminate)
$84 Million
Validation: The term "technology" is often used as an excuse to spend more government money. This program is not a departure from that movement.
Regional Education Service Centers (eliminate general revenue funding)
$43 Million
Validation: These centers are private businesses that are highly subsidized by the state.
Fifth Year Accounting Students (eliminate)
$1.1 Million
Validation: The accounting industry is healthy and graduates often well paid upon graduation. There is no reason accounting students need a subsidy more than students of any other subject.
Close the Gaps - Research (eliminate)
$8.4 Million
Validation: There is sufficient money available through private funds and the federal government.
Close the Gaps - Quality/Participation (eliminate)
$22.4 Million
Validation: Special funding for junior colleges that have redundant appropriations in other areas of the budget.
Special Item Support (eliminate)
$582 Million
Validation: Specialized programs at many universities that have little to do with education. Items such as economic development should not compete for our critical education dollars. These programs seem to encourage universities to create spending programs for the sake of spending money.
Public Integrity Unit - Travis County (eliminate)
$6.7 Million
Validation: Public officials can be investigated and prosecuted anywhere in the state. However, only the Travis County District Attorney receives state funding.
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (eliminate)
$72 Million
Validation: This agency was created just after the repeal of prohibition, and is no longer necessary. The functions of the TABC are covered by other law enforcement agencies and thus should be folded into those agencies.
Local Park Grants (eliminate)
$20 Million
Validation: It is the responsibility of local governments to fund construction and maintenance of local parks,not stte government.
Promote LP Gas Usage (eliminate)
$9 Million
Validation: LP Gas companies are much more capable and positioned to promote their business than the state.
Office of Rural Community Affairs (Merge with another agency; save general revenue funds
$5 Million
Validation: This office should be merged back into the Department of Housing and Community Affairs to save general revenues.
Office of Consumer Credit Commissioner (eliminate)
$8.4 Million
Validation: Competition regulates the industry and individuals benefit from attractive rates. There is no need for government interference in consumer choice.
Funeral Service Commission (eliminate)
$1.2 Million
Validation: De-regulate the funeral industry and eliminate the agency that limits competition and consumer choice.
Board of Professional Geoscientists (eliminate)
$858,000
Validation: The agency limits competition and consumer choice and there is little evidence the agency was or is necessary.
Department of Insurance (eliminate certain programs)
$37 Million
Validation: De-regulation would reduce insurance costs and be good for consumers. Funding to investigate fraud is still critical.
Loss Control Programs (eliminate)
$5.2 Million
Validation: Government should encourage private businesses to build sturdy structures, it should require those businesses to bear all the risks.
Total: $2,929,958,000
Senator Patrick has authored SB 1190, which would create a Texas Spending Commission to find waste, fraud and abuse in state government. The commission, modeled after President Reagan's Grace Commission, would have audit powers over state agencies so they could report to the Legislature ways to cut spending.
Editor's note: The Senate's budget (with the above spending) passed by a vote 26-5. Senator Patrick voted against the budget.
Editor's Note: This is the real editor. The italicized language, above, is part of Senator Patrick's press release.
ROADBLOCK: Riders on the Storm
The two-year moratorium on the privatization of highways that Lois Kolkhorst tacked onto a transportation bill in the House last week was just the first shot against the Trans-Texas Corridor. The amendment prohibited the Tx-DOT from entering into a comprehensive development agreement with any private entity and banned the sale of any toll road to a private entity until the moratorium expires on September 1, 2009. (The amendment did contain some carve-outs for certain regional toll authorities.)
Senate budget writers fired the second volley this week in a series of riders in the Tx-DOT budget that inhibit the department's ability to enter into privatization agreements free of legislative oversight, as it has been able to do until now. The House version of the budget also addresses oversight issues, particularly of the Corridor. In addition to these riders, others place strict reporting requirements on the department to account for its use of funds.
Four years after the Legislature gave Tx-DOT carte blanche to privatize the state highway system, lawmakers have reasserted their control. This is a salutary development, the real credit for which goes to the public, which saw the potential for abuse and corruption in the Trans-Texas Corridor, as well as its cost to motorists and its impact on rural property ownership, long before the politicians did. The two budget bills, which will be reconciled in conference committee, go a long way toward establishing legislative oversight regarding the Corridor and toll roads generally.
Legislators should recognize, however, that the moratorium and the budget riders do not solve the long-term mobility issues facing Texas. The ultimate objective is a superior system of free intercity roads, supplemented by toll roads in congested areas, that are built, maintained, and operated with public funds. This is an achievable objective. Despite assertions by Tx-DOT in the past that this objective cannot be realized without tolling, the Texas Transportation Institute at Texas A&M has indicated otherwise: Increasing the gasoline tax by 8 cents per gallon and indexing the tax to inflation in the highway construction index will produce sufficient revenue for the state to meet its transportation needs over the next 25 years by issuing bonds. Unfortunately, the political will and leadership necessary to take these steps do not seem to be present, although you would think that the hostility toward the Corridor outside the Capitol would provide enough cover to allow those inside to muster a little courage.
The public uprising against the Trans-Texas Corridor is a significant event in Texas political history. Historically, grass roots activism has not flourished here. A few groups have been effective in getting their programs enacted--Mothers Against Drunk Driving comes to mind--but, session after session, the agenda tends to be set by the lobby and the leadership, who are responsive to important organized constituencies within their political parties. The last time I can recall citizens storming the Capitol demanding action occurred in the late eighties, when overcrowding of Texas prisons led to the release of violent criminals by the thousands. The Legislature responded with a mammoth prison-building program. In the last couple of years, however, Texans have organized to express concerns about illegal immigration (on both sides of the issue), about coal plants, and about Governor Perry's and Speaker Craddick's hostility toward the education community--and, of course, about the Trans-Texas Corridor. I think this new activism reflects that Texas is changing in ways we don't fully understand, that quality of life issues are becoming as important as social and economic issues, and that the state's political leadership is seen as being out of touch with the times. And rightfully so.
I seem to have strayed from the subject of the transportation riders. The Senate's provisions appear first, then the House's. The numbering of the Senate riders, immediately below, is my own, not the budget writers'. Both bills can be found on the Legislative Budget Board's Web site. The Department of Transportation budget is in Article VII.
#1. Comprehensive Development Agreements
The Department of Transportation may not expend any amounts from payments received by the department under a comprehensive development agreement and deposited to the State Highway Fund #6, including applicable concession fees, unless:
a. the department submits a report to the Legislative Budget Board ... outlining the amount of funds available from such payments ..., the department's anticipated use of such funds and their projected impacts, and
b. The Legislative Budget Board issues a written approval for the use of such funds.
#2. Appropriations of Concession Fees and Payments Received under a Comprehensive Development Agreement.
The Department of Transportation may not expend any amounts from payments received by the department under a Comprehensive Development Agreement and deposited to the State Highway Fund...including applicable concession fees, unless:
a. The department submits a report to the LBB ... outlining the amount of funds available from such payments ..., the department's anticipated use of such funds, and their projected impacts; and
b. The Legislative Budget Board issues a written approval for the use of such funds.
#3. Toll Project Revenue and Funds Report.
Using funds appropriated above, the Department of Transportation shall submit to the Legislative Budget Board...an annual report of all state toll project revenue received and any other related funds that are deposited outside the state treasury, including the purpose and use of such funds....
#4. Limitations on Expenditures for Contracts
a. Without prior approval of the Legislative Budget Board, the Department of Transportation shall not use funds appropriated above to enter into any contract with a private participant for the construction, maintenance, or operation of a road or highway in the State of Texas that:
(1) contains any provision that would guarantee or ensure a return on investment;
(2) would reduce the risk of the private participant as a result of any action taken by the department or the State of Texas;
(3) would limit or penalize the expansion of any other department-run facilities designed to reduce congestion;
(4) fails to contain a stated buy-back provision that can be calculated without using estimates of future revenues;
(5) contains any possible financial liability that could be inherited by the department, the State of Texas, or any other state agency.
(b) The Legislative Budget Board may consider a request from the Department of Transportation to expend funds appropriated above to enter into a contract containing any of the criteria specified in this rider. A request by the department to expend funds under this provision must include information regarding the location, project costs, and projected benefits to the state for each project request proposed under such contracts.
The House also adopted a rider addressing the Trans-Texas Corridor, reflecting recommendations made earlier in the session by the State Auditor:
Miscellaneous Provisions Related to Toll Roads and Trans-Texas Corridor Projects.
a. Toll Road Projects. The Department of Transportation may not use appropriate funds to pay any costs related to making projections, using department personnel, of revenue to be generated by a toll road project. The department may use appropriated funds to may the cost of making those projections only if the projections are made under an interagency contract between the department and the Comptroller of Public Accounts under which the Comptroller:
(1) makes the projections for the department; and
(2) projects the toll revenue for each geographic region of a toll road segment before the department signs a contract with a developer to operate, lease, and finance that segment.
b. Report of Indirect Costs. In each cost report submitted to the Legislature by the Department of Transportation that includes information related to a project that is part of the Trans-Texas Corridor, the department shall either include indirect costs associated with that project or indicate that indirect costs are not addressed in the report.
c. Access to Records Relating to the Trans-Texas Corridor. The department shall spend appropriations available for the purpose under this Act to achieve transparency in the department's functions related to the Trans-Texas Corridor by providing, to the greatest extent possble, ... public access to information collected, assembled, and maintained by the department relating to the Trans-Texas Corridor.
d. Accuracy of Developer Assumptions in TTC-35 Project. Money appropriated by this Act may not be spent in connection with a contract entered into by the department ... related to the TTC-35 project, unless the department implements a process to obtain assurance regarding the reasonableness of the assumptions that the contracted developers use in developing plans and financial projections for the TTC-35.
e. Financing Costs Associated with Mid-Term Road Facilities and Long-Term Road Facilities. The Department may not use money appropriated under this Act to implement a master development plan unless the plan includes the financing costs associated with the mid-term and long-term facilities.
Senate budget writers fired the second volley this week in a series of riders in the Tx-DOT budget that inhibit the department's ability to enter into privatization agreements free of legislative oversight, as it has been able to do until now. The House version of the budget also addresses oversight issues, particularly of the Corridor. In addition to these riders, others place strict reporting requirements on the department to account for its use of funds.
Four years after the Legislature gave Tx-DOT carte blanche to privatize the state highway system, lawmakers have reasserted their control. This is a salutary development, the real credit for which goes to the public, which saw the potential for abuse and corruption in the Trans-Texas Corridor, as well as its cost to motorists and its impact on rural property ownership, long before the politicians did. The two budget bills, which will be reconciled in conference committee, go a long way toward establishing legislative oversight regarding the Corridor and toll roads generally.
Legislators should recognize, however, that the moratorium and the budget riders do not solve the long-term mobility issues facing Texas. The ultimate objective is a superior system of free intercity roads, supplemented by toll roads in congested areas, that are built, maintained, and operated with public funds. This is an achievable objective. Despite assertions by Tx-DOT in the past that this objective cannot be realized without tolling, the Texas Transportation Institute at Texas A&M has indicated otherwise: Increasing the gasoline tax by 8 cents per gallon and indexing the tax to inflation in the highway construction index will produce sufficient revenue for the state to meet its transportation needs over the next 25 years by issuing bonds. Unfortunately, the political will and leadership necessary to take these steps do not seem to be present, although you would think that the hostility toward the Corridor outside the Capitol would provide enough cover to allow those inside to muster a little courage.
The public uprising against the Trans-Texas Corridor is a significant event in Texas political history. Historically, grass roots activism has not flourished here. A few groups have been effective in getting their programs enacted--Mothers Against Drunk Driving comes to mind--but, session after session, the agenda tends to be set by the lobby and the leadership, who are responsive to important organized constituencies within their political parties. The last time I can recall citizens storming the Capitol demanding action occurred in the late eighties, when overcrowding of Texas prisons led to the release of violent criminals by the thousands. The Legislature responded with a mammoth prison-building program. In the last couple of years, however, Texans have organized to express concerns about illegal immigration (on both sides of the issue), about coal plants, and about Governor Perry's and Speaker Craddick's hostility toward the education community--and, of course, about the Trans-Texas Corridor. I think this new activism reflects that Texas is changing in ways we don't fully understand, that quality of life issues are becoming as important as social and economic issues, and that the state's political leadership is seen as being out of touch with the times. And rightfully so.
I seem to have strayed from the subject of the transportation riders. The Senate's provisions appear first, then the House's. The numbering of the Senate riders, immediately below, is my own, not the budget writers'. Both bills can be found on the Legislative Budget Board's Web site. The Department of Transportation budget is in Article VII.
#1. Comprehensive Development Agreements
The Department of Transportation may not expend any amounts from payments received by the department under a comprehensive development agreement and deposited to the State Highway Fund #6, including applicable concession fees, unless:
a. the department submits a report to the Legislative Budget Board ... outlining the amount of funds available from such payments ..., the department's anticipated use of such funds and their projected impacts, and
b. The Legislative Budget Board issues a written approval for the use of such funds.
#2. Appropriations of Concession Fees and Payments Received under a Comprehensive Development Agreement.
The Department of Transportation may not expend any amounts from payments received by the department under a Comprehensive Development Agreement and deposited to the State Highway Fund...including applicable concession fees, unless:
a. The department submits a report to the LBB ... outlining the amount of funds available from such payments ..., the department's anticipated use of such funds, and their projected impacts; and
b. The Legislative Budget Board issues a written approval for the use of such funds.
#3. Toll Project Revenue and Funds Report.
Using funds appropriated above, the Department of Transportation shall submit to the Legislative Budget Board...an annual report of all state toll project revenue received and any other related funds that are deposited outside the state treasury, including the purpose and use of such funds....
#4. Limitations on Expenditures for Contracts
a. Without prior approval of the Legislative Budget Board, the Department of Transportation shall not use funds appropriated above to enter into any contract with a private participant for the construction, maintenance, or operation of a road or highway in the State of Texas that:
(1) contains any provision that would guarantee or ensure a return on investment;
(2) would reduce the risk of the private participant as a result of any action taken by the department or the State of Texas;
(3) would limit or penalize the expansion of any other department-run facilities designed to reduce congestion;
(4) fails to contain a stated buy-back provision that can be calculated without using estimates of future revenues;
(5) contains any possible financial liability that could be inherited by the department, the State of Texas, or any other state agency.
(b) The Legislative Budget Board may consider a request from the Department of Transportation to expend funds appropriated above to enter into a contract containing any of the criteria specified in this rider. A request by the department to expend funds under this provision must include information regarding the location, project costs, and projected benefits to the state for each project request proposed under such contracts.
The House also adopted a rider addressing the Trans-Texas Corridor, reflecting recommendations made earlier in the session by the State Auditor:
Miscellaneous Provisions Related to Toll Roads and Trans-Texas Corridor Projects.
a. Toll Road Projects. The Department of Transportation may not use appropriate funds to pay any costs related to making projections, using department personnel, of revenue to be generated by a toll road project. The department may use appropriated funds to may the cost of making those projections only if the projections are made under an interagency contract between the department and the Comptroller of Public Accounts under which the Comptroller:
(1) makes the projections for the department; and
(2) projects the toll revenue for each geographic region of a toll road segment before the department signs a contract with a developer to operate, lease, and finance that segment.
b. Report of Indirect Costs. In each cost report submitted to the Legislature by the Department of Transportation that includes information related to a project that is part of the Trans-Texas Corridor, the department shall either include indirect costs associated with that project or indicate that indirect costs are not addressed in the report.
c. Access to Records Relating to the Trans-Texas Corridor. The department shall spend appropriations available for the purpose under this Act to achieve transparency in the department's functions related to the Trans-Texas Corridor by providing, to the greatest extent possble, ... public access to information collected, assembled, and maintained by the department relating to the Trans-Texas Corridor.
d. Accuracy of Developer Assumptions in TTC-35 Project. Money appropriated by this Act may not be spent in connection with a contract entered into by the department ... related to the TTC-35 project, unless the department implements a process to obtain assurance regarding the reasonableness of the assumptions that the contracted developers use in developing plans and financial projections for the TTC-35.
e. Financing Costs Associated with Mid-Term Road Facilities and Long-Term Road Facilities. The Department may not use money appropriated under this Act to implement a master development plan unless the plan includes the financing costs associated with the mid-term and long-term facilities.
Judge Not
If you weren't watching the House until the bitter end Thursday night, you missed a, well, bitter end. It was one of those moments when an apparently innocuous bill pulls back the curtain on the enmity and suspicion that lingers behind it. The occasion was HB 2068 by Hartnett, which said that the parties in a civil or family lawsuit that has been assigned to a trial judge could agree to have their case heard by a retired judge, and the trial judge SHALL (a change in the law from "may") grant the request. What's the big deal? you may ask. The big deal is that last November the Democrats won every contested judicial race in Dallas County, and Yvonne Davis and other Ds suspected that Hartnett's bill allowed litigants who didn't like the Democratic judge assigned to hear their case to make an end run to a retired Republican judge. Hartnett professed total innocence, said the idea wasn't even on his radar screen, said all he wanted to do was clean up uncontested divorce cases so that the parties could go to a law office rather than sit around court all day waiting for their case to be called, but the assault continued and he postponed the bill to the end of the calendar. In the end, Hartnett tweaked the bill to specify that it applied only to uncontested matters and it passed easily, but not before revealing the partisan tensions that still churn below the surface.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Dan Patrick Responds to Patti Hart
This evening Senator Dan Patrick responded to Patti Hart's post of yesterday with the following comment:
--------------------------------------
I don't normally respond to blog posts, but I felt Patricia's comments needed some clarification. I'm surely not mad with her. She has a job to do and has her opinion, but let's at least get the facts correct.
I believe this is the third anti-Patrick piece in a month from Patricia. That doesn't bother me. However, we are starting to see a pattern.
She didn't like my incentive plan to prevent possible abortions and save lives. I respect her right to disagree but when she questioned my reasons and sincerity for suggesting this bill, I felt that was over the line.
She then wrote a completely false story about me being the only Senator not on the floor during the Iman prayer. The truth was that 7 senators, one third of the republican party, were not on the floor. She either refused to print the truth or simply did a poor job of reporting the story by not checking her facts. The story is much different if it reads one third of republicans skip prayer as opposed to one senator. Was she trying to single me out? She also said I was outraged before the prayer. That was simply false. I am not anti Muslim or anti Islam. I am simply a Christian who did not want to be in a position of breaking the first commandment.
Now she attacks me for simply standing up for the people I represent and my principles. The budget is over 150 billion and impacts 23 million Texans. If other republicans choose not to offer debate I respect their decision. However, I have a right and I believe a duty to represent my views and speak for others. Are we going to spend 150 billion and not ask any questions. Those 16 senators like me not on finance have very little say on the budget. This was the time to ask questions. We had only gotten the budget about 48 hours before the vote. Then to somehow compare me to McCarthy is absolutely absurd.
My staff and others outside of the capitol looked for possible savings in the budget. You can agree or disagree on those savings cut ideas, but we did our homework. I received it just prior to the session. There was not time to pass it out. As I mentioned about getting this budget at the last moment, she surely remembers last month when we busted the spending cap,that that information was given to all senators about 30 minutes before the vote. Even if I had the information earlier it would not have changed the outcome. The votes were in the can. They were not going to delay the vote another day.
The reason I distributed it to the media was to show where we might begin to cut dollars. I wanted to back up my claim that at least 3 billion could be found and begin the flow of ideas. I did not even refer to it other than I found the cuts until Sentor Whitmire challenged me to show him my information. She says I waved it around as if I was grandstanding on the issue. I was answering a challenge after I had finished speaking and she knows that. I believe we can find much more. If one assumes that at least 5% of the budget is waste that is over 7 billion. My point is that every dollar counts. Let's not spend money in some areas that are not a priority. Our dollars have to count.
Our budget has grown from over 30 billion in only 4 years. I am very concerned that we continue to spend money and still seem to have problems concerning our roads, education, health care, border. public safety and other key issues.
I am quite sure some Senators do not like a freshman speaking out as I do. It is not the tradition. However, I did not get elected to sit quietly on the sidelines. I was elected to help bring about change.
I have great respect for my fellow members. I have helped them on their agendas and they have helped me. A few may not like the fact that I'm here, but the vast majority, from both parties, have been extremely helpful including Senator Whitmire and Lucio who debated me yesterday. As to her charge of attacking one senator, I was not attacking one Senator, but rather his comments and the mantra that the property tax cuts are for the rich. I am tired of hearing that argument. Most people who will get tax relief are just hard working homeowners. They need relief. They are not rich. Every time I have taken the floor or spoken off the floor I have been repectful of others while at the same time standing up for what I believe.
Whether Patricia agrees with me or not is not important. However, you would think that she would welcome debate in the senate. You would think she would welcome someone who is willing to ask questions and challenge the system at times. We have a lot of talented and smart Senators from both parties in the Senate who work long hours trying their best to solve problems. At the same time our problems continue to grow as does our budget. I want to be sure we explore all possibilities in how we govern. We cannot continue to go down the same path we have been on. I think both liberals and conservatives would agree some change is due. I don't have all the answers, nor pretend to have them, but I do have questions. Patrica apparently doesn't think I should ask them.
--------------------------------------
I don't normally respond to blog posts, but I felt Patricia's comments needed some clarification. I'm surely not mad with her. She has a job to do and has her opinion, but let's at least get the facts correct.
I believe this is the third anti-Patrick piece in a month from Patricia. That doesn't bother me. However, we are starting to see a pattern.
She didn't like my incentive plan to prevent possible abortions and save lives. I respect her right to disagree but when she questioned my reasons and sincerity for suggesting this bill, I felt that was over the line.
She then wrote a completely false story about me being the only Senator not on the floor during the Iman prayer. The truth was that 7 senators, one third of the republican party, were not on the floor. She either refused to print the truth or simply did a poor job of reporting the story by not checking her facts. The story is much different if it reads one third of republicans skip prayer as opposed to one senator. Was she trying to single me out? She also said I was outraged before the prayer. That was simply false. I am not anti Muslim or anti Islam. I am simply a Christian who did not want to be in a position of breaking the first commandment.
Now she attacks me for simply standing up for the people I represent and my principles. The budget is over 150 billion and impacts 23 million Texans. If other republicans choose not to offer debate I respect their decision. However, I have a right and I believe a duty to represent my views and speak for others. Are we going to spend 150 billion and not ask any questions. Those 16 senators like me not on finance have very little say on the budget. This was the time to ask questions. We had only gotten the budget about 48 hours before the vote. Then to somehow compare me to McCarthy is absolutely absurd.
My staff and others outside of the capitol looked for possible savings in the budget. You can agree or disagree on those savings cut ideas, but we did our homework. I received it just prior to the session. There was not time to pass it out. As I mentioned about getting this budget at the last moment, she surely remembers last month when we busted the spending cap,that that information was given to all senators about 30 minutes before the vote. Even if I had the information earlier it would not have changed the outcome. The votes were in the can. They were not going to delay the vote another day.
The reason I distributed it to the media was to show where we might begin to cut dollars. I wanted to back up my claim that at least 3 billion could be found and begin the flow of ideas. I did not even refer to it other than I found the cuts until Sentor Whitmire challenged me to show him my information. She says I waved it around as if I was grandstanding on the issue. I was answering a challenge after I had finished speaking and she knows that. I believe we can find much more. If one assumes that at least 5% of the budget is waste that is over 7 billion. My point is that every dollar counts. Let's not spend money in some areas that are not a priority. Our dollars have to count.
Our budget has grown from over 30 billion in only 4 years. I am very concerned that we continue to spend money and still seem to have problems concerning our roads, education, health care, border. public safety and other key issues.
I am quite sure some Senators do not like a freshman speaking out as I do. It is not the tradition. However, I did not get elected to sit quietly on the sidelines. I was elected to help bring about change.
I have great respect for my fellow members. I have helped them on their agendas and they have helped me. A few may not like the fact that I'm here, but the vast majority, from both parties, have been extremely helpful including Senator Whitmire and Lucio who debated me yesterday. As to her charge of attacking one senator, I was not attacking one Senator, but rather his comments and the mantra that the property tax cuts are for the rich. I am tired of hearing that argument. Most people who will get tax relief are just hard working homeowners. They need relief. They are not rich. Every time I have taken the floor or spoken off the floor I have been repectful of others while at the same time standing up for what I believe.
Whether Patricia agrees with me or not is not important. However, you would think that she would welcome debate in the senate. You would think she would welcome someone who is willing to ask questions and challenge the system at times. We have a lot of talented and smart Senators from both parties in the Senate who work long hours trying their best to solve problems. At the same time our problems continue to grow as does our budget. I want to be sure we explore all possibilities in how we govern. We cannot continue to go down the same path we have been on. I think both liberals and conservatives would agree some change is due. I don't have all the answers, nor pretend to have them, but I do have questions. Patrica apparently doesn't think I should ask them.
Plugged In
I hesitate to tackle the subject of retail electricity, lest I reveal my imperfect understanding of the subject, or put readers to sleep, or both, but it was an important debate in a way that went beyond the substance of the issue. It was like the old days before the Republicans took over. There were bipartisan coalitions (Phil King and Rene Oliveira), bipartisan amendments (Eiland and Bohac), and intraparty strife (Oliveira vs. Sylvester Turner). The chair ruled evenhandedly. Voting took place on the merits rather than along party lines. I looked up one vote--the motion to table an Eiland amendment for a 15% rate cut, which failed on a 66-66 tie vote--expecting it to reflect party lines, and, sure enough, here were the names of those who voted to table, Republican after Republican: Anderson, Aycock, Berman, Bohac, Bonnen, Branch, Brown B., Brown F., Callegari, Chisum, Christian, Cook B., Creighton, Davis J., Delisi, Driver, Dunnam ... WHAT? Dunnam!
King went a long way toward rehabilitating himself from his dreadful management of the telephone dereg and PUC sunset bills last session, which landed him on the Ten Worst list. He compromised, he accepted amendments, he patted members who opposed him on the back, and in general displayed a low-key bedside manner, even when pushed to the limit by an aggressive Borris Miles. King went to the back mike to question authors of hostile amendments, a risky tactic that worked. He had to fend off a lot of pro-consumer amendments--imposing rate cuts, exempting senior citizens from having to put up deposits, curtailing utilities' ability to charge late-payment fees--that he said might hurt small REPs (retail electric providers) by reducing income or imposing costs. (I wonder how many small REPs there are, and how long they can survive in competition with the TXUs and Reliants.) King stuck to a simple message of promoting competition and keeping the maximum number of competitors in the market. For the most part, it worked. He generally stayed away from the TXU buyout, except to note that his perfecting amendment codified the agreements between the prospective buyers and the PUC. The debate revealed the House's schizophrenic attitude toward deregulation: It wants to have its cake (a competitive market that ought to drive rates downward, but hasn't, except for big customers) and eat it too (by mandating lower rates).
There were three major battles during the long debate. One was an effort by Turner to give the PUC authority to order a refund to price-to-beat customers (please don't ask me to explain this; all you have to know is that these folks have been paying the highest rates) based upon the lowest price offered anywhere in the state, supplanting a previous proposal by Oliveira. Their debate grew pretty heated, to the point that Oliveira shouted that Turner wasn't the only person who represented poor people. Both Turner's and Oliveira's proposals went down, clearing the way for Eiland's mandatory 15% rate cut for price-t0-beat customers, which was tabled by a 66-65 vote. Or was it? After verification and machine malfunctions, the tally was 66-66, which meant that the motion to table failed. Then the amendment was adopted by a comfortable margin.
The third issue, and King's biggest concern, was the requirement in the Senate bill of PUC approval of any sale, such as the pending TXU deal. He strongly opposes retroactive interference with mergers and acquisitions. The key test came on an amendment by Sid Miller and Charlie Geren to give the PUC prospective authority to approve or disapprove deals like the TXU buyout. King didn't like that either: "This is the vote everybody has been anticipating. Do we want approval by the PUC or just allow them to have a review process with substantial scrutiny [of the deal] but not final approval? My concern is that the PUC is not qualified to make decisions on a stock purchase." Instead of opposing the amendment, however, King worked out a compromise for a drop-dead period date (180 days) for the PUC to act, after which the deal would be deemed approved. This was one of several instances when he initially opposed an amendment but worked on a compromise that he could accept.
During the debate over the Miller amendment, Turner asked how many other states give their PUCs this authority. At least 47 other states, King responded. That was the cue for Leo Berman to rise to defend Texas's honor. "Would you agree with me that Texas has the best economy in the United States?" he asked King. "Is it fair to say that Texas had the largest surplus, coming into this session, of all the fifty states?" "Have we ever followed any other states with regard to our economic decisions?" "Why would we follow them, then, with this process that 47 other states are using, since we already have the best economy based on decisions that are made here in Texas." You're not going to catch Leo having any new ideas, no sir.
The overall result was a defeat for the eels (a popular nickname for the electric companies), something that doesn't happen often on the floor of the House. They are going to have to cut rates and submit to PUC approval of future acquisitions. Deregulation has eroded their political power by carving the old behemoths into three companies (generation, transmission, retail) and reducing their presence in local communities. Gone are the fishing trips for legislators to the fabled Honey Hole.
The vote on second reading was 132-1, with Merritt casting the only negative vote. But when the wholesale electricity bill came up next on the calendar, victory turned into defeat. King's old bugaboo reappeared: a valid point of order against his bill. He had to recommit the bill to committee.
King went a long way toward rehabilitating himself from his dreadful management of the telephone dereg and PUC sunset bills last session, which landed him on the Ten Worst list. He compromised, he accepted amendments, he patted members who opposed him on the back, and in general displayed a low-key bedside manner, even when pushed to the limit by an aggressive Borris Miles. King went to the back mike to question authors of hostile amendments, a risky tactic that worked. He had to fend off a lot of pro-consumer amendments--imposing rate cuts, exempting senior citizens from having to put up deposits, curtailing utilities' ability to charge late-payment fees--that he said might hurt small REPs (retail electric providers) by reducing income or imposing costs. (I wonder how many small REPs there are, and how long they can survive in competition with the TXUs and Reliants.) King stuck to a simple message of promoting competition and keeping the maximum number of competitors in the market. For the most part, it worked. He generally stayed away from the TXU buyout, except to note that his perfecting amendment codified the agreements between the prospective buyers and the PUC. The debate revealed the House's schizophrenic attitude toward deregulation: It wants to have its cake (a competitive market that ought to drive rates downward, but hasn't, except for big customers) and eat it too (by mandating lower rates).
There were three major battles during the long debate. One was an effort by Turner to give the PUC authority to order a refund to price-to-beat customers (please don't ask me to explain this; all you have to know is that these folks have been paying the highest rates) based upon the lowest price offered anywhere in the state, supplanting a previous proposal by Oliveira. Their debate grew pretty heated, to the point that Oliveira shouted that Turner wasn't the only person who represented poor people. Both Turner's and Oliveira's proposals went down, clearing the way for Eiland's mandatory 15% rate cut for price-t0-beat customers, which was tabled by a 66-65 vote. Or was it? After verification and machine malfunctions, the tally was 66-66, which meant that the motion to table failed. Then the amendment was adopted by a comfortable margin.
The third issue, and King's biggest concern, was the requirement in the Senate bill of PUC approval of any sale, such as the pending TXU deal. He strongly opposes retroactive interference with mergers and acquisitions. The key test came on an amendment by Sid Miller and Charlie Geren to give the PUC prospective authority to approve or disapprove deals like the TXU buyout. King didn't like that either: "This is the vote everybody has been anticipating. Do we want approval by the PUC or just allow them to have a review process with substantial scrutiny [of the deal] but not final approval? My concern is that the PUC is not qualified to make decisions on a stock purchase." Instead of opposing the amendment, however, King worked out a compromise for a drop-dead period date (180 days) for the PUC to act, after which the deal would be deemed approved. This was one of several instances when he initially opposed an amendment but worked on a compromise that he could accept.
During the debate over the Miller amendment, Turner asked how many other states give their PUCs this authority. At least 47 other states, King responded. That was the cue for Leo Berman to rise to defend Texas's honor. "Would you agree with me that Texas has the best economy in the United States?" he asked King. "Is it fair to say that Texas had the largest surplus, coming into this session, of all the fifty states?" "Have we ever followed any other states with regard to our economic decisions?" "Why would we follow them, then, with this process that 47 other states are using, since we already have the best economy based on decisions that are made here in Texas." You're not going to catch Leo having any new ideas, no sir.
The overall result was a defeat for the eels (a popular nickname for the electric companies), something that doesn't happen often on the floor of the House. They are going to have to cut rates and submit to PUC approval of future acquisitions. Deregulation has eroded their political power by carving the old behemoths into three companies (generation, transmission, retail) and reducing their presence in local communities. Gone are the fishing trips for legislators to the fabled Honey Hole.
The vote on second reading was 132-1, with Merritt casting the only negative vote. But when the wholesale electricity bill came up next on the calendar, victory turned into defeat. King's old bugaboo reappeared: a valid point of order against his bill. He had to recommit the bill to committee.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Post-Mortem on Patrick
It would be easy to dismiss the fireworks in the Texas Senate today as the reaction of an elite fraternity punishing a party crasher. But the reality is Dan Patrick deserved his public upbraiding on several levels:
1. Joe McCarthy was hated in the fifties and he's hated now. How irresponsible is it to claim you have found $3 billion in savings in the state's budget -- and yet not have shared this important information with anyone on the Finance Committee? But there was Patrick, waiving his list of "savings" on the Senate floor while shouting out names and numbers, looking very much like Joe McCarthy waiving a list of known Communists. Did Patrick ever stop to say why a certain program was unworthy of state expenditures? Had he investigated whether it pulled down any federal matching dollars? All of these questions went unanswered because, as John Whitmire pointed out during his tongue-lashing of Patrick, if Patrick had been serious about making the cuts, he would have vetted them through the committee. There, state agencies can be summoned to explain how the dollars are spent. And if they couldn't justify the expenditure, the Finance Committee would have happily transferred the funds to more pressing state needs. Perhaps the funniest part of the Patrick-Whitmire exchange came when Patrick promised to share his list of "savings" with the press. "The press? The press doesn't have a vote!" Whitmire yelled. "This member of the press does!" came Patrick's inane reply. The guy completely missed the point: if he wants to get something done, he should be negotiating with his fellow senators, not grandstanding for the press or practicing for his radio broadcst.
2.Kindergarten rule No. 1: Pick on somebody your own size. Throughout the Senate's six-hour discussion of the budget, several Democrat members decried the decision to leave $3 billion on the table for property tax cuts. All of them talked about the rich. And yet, Patrick waits until sickly Mario Gallegos, who's recovering from a liver transplant for Crimminy's sake, makes the same comment. And bam! Patrick lets him have it! Wonder why Patrick didn't decide to "stand up for hard-working middle-class Texans" when it would have forced him to debate silver-tongued Rodney Ellis or cerebral Eliot Shapleigh? Much easier to beat up on the skinny kid.
3. He showed complete ignorance of, and contempt for, the budgetary process. When Patrick made his initial comments on the floor, he had the audacity to tell war-weary Steve Ogden that he thought it would be a good idea if a specially-appointed commission study the state budget during the interim. What does he think Ogden's been doing with his life the last few sessions? Shortly after both Tommy Williams and Judith Zaffirni went into lengthy detail about how many hours the committee had met, and agency budget requests were vetted through the Legislative Budget Board, the state auditor, comptroller performance reviews, etc., etc. Patrick never seemed to catch on that they were responding to him. I think Patrick was in the Senate Lounge by that point. As one Senator said to me, "If you already know everything, you don't have to waste time listening.
Among all of Patrick's statements, one insult stands out brightest. He asked Ogden how much he had to give away in order to secure 21 votes to bring up the budget. I have no doubt that certain state programs are well-protected. No one's going to worry too much over in College Station as long as Ogden is chairman. But the bulk of the real fights in Finance arose over how best to deliver services: waiting lists versus doctor compensation rates; how to best distribute public ed dollars; how to reign in TxDOT and exactly what staffing levels does TYC need to clean up its act. When I heard Patrick's question, I thought, this is a guy who doesn't believe in government spending at all.
By the way, Patrick never did send his list of "savings" to the press. We're all still waiting.
1. Joe McCarthy was hated in the fifties and he's hated now. How irresponsible is it to claim you have found $3 billion in savings in the state's budget -- and yet not have shared this important information with anyone on the Finance Committee? But there was Patrick, waiving his list of "savings" on the Senate floor while shouting out names and numbers, looking very much like Joe McCarthy waiving a list of known Communists. Did Patrick ever stop to say why a certain program was unworthy of state expenditures? Had he investigated whether it pulled down any federal matching dollars? All of these questions went unanswered because, as John Whitmire pointed out during his tongue-lashing of Patrick, if Patrick had been serious about making the cuts, he would have vetted them through the committee. There, state agencies can be summoned to explain how the dollars are spent. And if they couldn't justify the expenditure, the Finance Committee would have happily transferred the funds to more pressing state needs. Perhaps the funniest part of the Patrick-Whitmire exchange came when Patrick promised to share his list of "savings" with the press. "The press? The press doesn't have a vote!" Whitmire yelled. "This member of the press does!" came Patrick's inane reply. The guy completely missed the point: if he wants to get something done, he should be negotiating with his fellow senators, not grandstanding for the press or practicing for his radio broadcst.
2.Kindergarten rule No. 1: Pick on somebody your own size. Throughout the Senate's six-hour discussion of the budget, several Democrat members decried the decision to leave $3 billion on the table for property tax cuts. All of them talked about the rich. And yet, Patrick waits until sickly Mario Gallegos, who's recovering from a liver transplant for Crimminy's sake, makes the same comment. And bam! Patrick lets him have it! Wonder why Patrick didn't decide to "stand up for hard-working middle-class Texans" when it would have forced him to debate silver-tongued Rodney Ellis or cerebral Eliot Shapleigh? Much easier to beat up on the skinny kid.
3. He showed complete ignorance of, and contempt for, the budgetary process. When Patrick made his initial comments on the floor, he had the audacity to tell war-weary Steve Ogden that he thought it would be a good idea if a specially-appointed commission study the state budget during the interim. What does he think Ogden's been doing with his life the last few sessions? Shortly after both Tommy Williams and Judith Zaffirni went into lengthy detail about how many hours the committee had met, and agency budget requests were vetted through the Legislative Budget Board, the state auditor, comptroller performance reviews, etc., etc. Patrick never seemed to catch on that they were responding to him. I think Patrick was in the Senate Lounge by that point. As one Senator said to me, "If you already know everything, you don't have to waste time listening.
Among all of Patrick's statements, one insult stands out brightest. He asked Ogden how much he had to give away in order to secure 21 votes to bring up the budget. I have no doubt that certain state programs are well-protected. No one's going to worry too much over in College Station as long as Ogden is chairman. But the bulk of the real fights in Finance arose over how best to deliver services: waiting lists versus doctor compensation rates; how to best distribute public ed dollars; how to reign in TxDOT and exactly what staffing levels does TYC need to clean up its act. When I heard Patrick's question, I thought, this is a guy who doesn't believe in government spending at all.
By the way, Patrick never did send his list of "savings" to the press. We're all still waiting.
It's Official: Patrick is Senate Pariah
Simmering resentment toward radio personality- turned-Senator Dan Patrick boiled over into a shouting match as the Senate debated the state budget today. Patrick announced at the beginning of the debate that he had identified $3 billion in cuts, and suggested that the current budget process didn't carefully search for efficiencies.
At first, senators responded obliquely, commenting on the hundreds of hours -- including during the interim -- that the Finance Committee put in to review agency budget requests.
But the debate disintegrated into angry shouting when Patrick responded to comments made by Sen. Mario Gallegos about the budget reserving $3 billion to pay for budget cuts "for the rich."
Patrick responded: "I am sick and tired of the rhetoric on this floor about tax cuts for the rich. ...These are hard- working families...being branded as rich, rich, rich. Somebody needs to stand up on this floor for middle-class Texans."
First, Eddie Lucio rose to defend Gallegos, who is back for the first time since his liver transplant surgery earlier this session.
But the real fireworks occurred when John Whitmire grabbed his microphone and scolded Patrick for "lecturing my best friend."
"A moment ago, you were lecturing my best friend on the Senate floor," Whitmire said. Then he went on to challenge Patrick to "share" the budget cuts he mentioned at the outset of the debate. "I want you to itemize and state the method of financing. Each member of the senate deserves to hear this and I would challenge you to do it at this time. And take your time. You owe it to this body and be sure to include the method of financing"
Patrick began a rapid-fire reading from a list of state appropriations -- apparently items he had determined shouldn't be funded.
Whitmire interrupted him: Why didn't he share this with the Finance Committee? "You didn't think it was improtant enough to share it? All you were going to do prepare this for the press?"
Patrick retorted: "Like so many things on this Senate floor, the votes were already decided."
By this time, both men were shouting, and Whitmire again told Patrick he erred he "lecturing" Gallegos.
"I don't have to be lectured by you!" shouted Patrick.
Whitmire finally threw his microphone down in disgust. And then the Senate overwhelmingly passed the budget.
At first, senators responded obliquely, commenting on the hundreds of hours -- including during the interim -- that the Finance Committee put in to review agency budget requests.
But the debate disintegrated into angry shouting when Patrick responded to comments made by Sen. Mario Gallegos about the budget reserving $3 billion to pay for budget cuts "for the rich."
Patrick responded: "I am sick and tired of the rhetoric on this floor about tax cuts for the rich. ...These are hard- working families...being branded as rich, rich, rich. Somebody needs to stand up on this floor for middle-class Texans."
First, Eddie Lucio rose to defend Gallegos, who is back for the first time since his liver transplant surgery earlier this session.
But the real fireworks occurred when John Whitmire grabbed his microphone and scolded Patrick for "lecturing my best friend."
"A moment ago, you were lecturing my best friend on the Senate floor," Whitmire said. Then he went on to challenge Patrick to "share" the budget cuts he mentioned at the outset of the debate. "I want you to itemize and state the method of financing. Each member of the senate deserves to hear this and I would challenge you to do it at this time. And take your time. You owe it to this body and be sure to include the method of financing"
Patrick began a rapid-fire reading from a list of state appropriations -- apparently items he had determined shouldn't be funded.
Whitmire interrupted him: Why didn't he share this with the Finance Committee? "You didn't think it was improtant enough to share it? All you were going to do prepare this for the press?"
Patrick retorted: "Like so many things on this Senate floor, the votes were already decided."
By this time, both men were shouting, and Whitmire again told Patrick he erred he "lecturing" Gallegos.
"I don't have to be lectured by you!" shouted Patrick.
Whitmire finally threw his microphone down in disgust. And then the Senate overwhelmingly passed the budget.
Dewhurst Hopes CHIP Eligibility Debate Will Be Moot
Signalling an end to the perceived House/Senate split on CHIP eligibility, David Dewhurst told me today he has begun conversations with LBB chief John O'Brien to come up with a more realistic cost figure for adopting a new eligibility verification system.
Dewhurst made his comments as Senator Jane Nelson presented the Health and Human Serveice portion of the proposed budget currently being debated on the Senate floor.
"We have to get away from this six-month versus 12-month debate," Nelson said.
Stepping off the podium, Dewhurst said he agreed, and said the Senate is studying whether a more efficient method of constant verification would be more effective. For instance, he said CHIP administrators might conduct continuous sampling of families on the CHIP rolls to see if they still are eligible for services. He reiterated the statement made in a letter to Dallas Interfaith leaders -- that he wants all eligible children to receive services.
Meanwhile, he said his office contacted the Interaith leader who expressed unhappiness at not being able to get a meeting with him. After his office offered to meet immediately or tomorrow, the minister agreed to attend a Monday meeting, he said.
Dewhurst made his comments as Senator Jane Nelson presented the Health and Human Serveice portion of the proposed budget currently being debated on the Senate floor.
"We have to get away from this six-month versus 12-month debate," Nelson said.
Stepping off the podium, Dewhurst said he agreed, and said the Senate is studying whether a more efficient method of constant verification would be more effective. For instance, he said CHIP administrators might conduct continuous sampling of families on the CHIP rolls to see if they still are eligible for services. He reiterated the statement made in a letter to Dallas Interfaith leaders -- that he wants all eligible children to receive services.
Meanwhile, he said his office contacted the Interaith leader who expressed unhappiness at not being able to get a meeting with him. After his office offered to meet immediately or tomorrow, the minister agreed to attend a Monday meeting, he said.
Five Senators Vote Against Motion To Suspend On Budget
Dan Patrick, Rodney Ellis, Chris Harris, Mike Jackson and Eliot Shapleigh. Wonder if they've ever voted together before...
Patrick promised to share with the press $3 billion in potential cuts he and his staff identified. Wonder if he shared them with the Finance Committee while it was writing the budget....
Patrick promised to share with the press $3 billion in potential cuts he and his staff identified. Wonder if he shared them with the Finance Committee while it was writing the budget....
Settling Up: Update
The Frew settlement was a great piece of work. That it happened at all came as a surprise to many at the Capitol, since the conventional wisdom was that the state's clear failure to live up to its agreements to serve children on Medicaid, and the track record of Judge William Wayne Justice, gave the plaintiffs every reason to anticipate that litigation would be successful. However, boths sides knew that federal judges prefer to see cases settled, if possible, and that it would be prudent to go into court having made the effort.
Update: One thing that I have learned since I originally posted this item is that the attorney general's office made no attempt to settle the case. I find that incredible. They told senators, "The state is out of bullets. We've been to the Supreme Court twice and lost." One of the plaintiff's lawyers told her next door neighbor that the state had never even tried to settle. The neighbor was Leticia van de Putte, who informed her colleagues. The impetus for settlement came from the Senate.
The negotiations took place over two kinds of issues. One was "corrective action," in which the state had to develop a plan to make sure that eligible children received the medical and dental services they are entitled to. For example, the state must provide toll free numbers that offer "prompt service by a person who is knowledgeable, helpful, and polite. It must provide health care training about "early and periodic diagnosis and treatment" at medical and dental schools. I'm not going to go through the whole list. Basically, the state is responsible for seeing that all eligible kids get their medical and dental checkups--and that includes outreach and transportation--and for tracking the number and percent who get them, including the separate category of children of migrant farmworkers. All corrective issues were negotiated by the attorney general's office, and the total cost was $45 million.
The big sticking point was the reimbursement rate paid to providers (primarily doctors and dentists). This is a political decision, and the politicians (Ogden, Chisum, Guillen, John Davis, Leticia van de Putte, and others) did the negotiating. The Legislature has a horrible record in this area. The reimbursement rate for dentists was 10% of the American Dental Association's recommended rate. For doctors, the state paid Medicaid patients about a third of the Medicare rate of $98. The 2003 budget cuts reduced reimbursements to 1993 levels, and the consequence was that more and more doctors simply refused to treat Medicaid patients because the reimbursement rates were inadequate. The main reason that the state was out of compliance was the lack of doctors who would treat the patients.
The Senate had already signaled the state's good faith by including $250 million to raise provider rates in the appropriations bills for each chamber. Finance chairman Ogden played the bad cop, reminding the plaintiffs that he couldn't pass a budget if it spent so much money that Republicans voted against it. Eventually, the two sides agreed on raising the doctors' reimbursement rate by a total of 25% (the last step was a $10 increase, from $41 to $51 per visit), and the dentists' rate by a total of 50%. The plaintiffs made the point that reimbursement rates alone were not enough; the state had to do something about serving kids who live in areas where no providers available. Chisum and Guillen came up with the idea of mobile clinics, and that sealed the deal. The total cost to the state for the next biennium is $706,700,000, which will yield more than $1 billion in federal matching funds--almost to the dollar what Chisum had estimated the state would have to pay to get a settlement.
In a previous posting about the Frew case, my headline was "We're Frew with Frew!" That was too cavalier. We're not through. We just don't have to go to court. The consent decree remains in effect. The state is obligated to live up to the promises it made, not only in the consent decree but also in the settlement. Judge Justice still presides over the case. The Legislature is going to have to continue increasing provider rates, and the studies it is obligated to undertake are going to have to show that a high percentage of kids are actually getting the services available. Only then can the state contemplate going back to court and show that it is in sufficient compliance with the consent decree to have it dissolved.
Update: One thing that I have learned since I originally posted this item is that the attorney general's office made no attempt to settle the case. I find that incredible. They told senators, "The state is out of bullets. We've been to the Supreme Court twice and lost." One of the plaintiff's lawyers told her next door neighbor that the state had never even tried to settle. The neighbor was Leticia van de Putte, who informed her colleagues. The impetus for settlement came from the Senate.
The negotiations took place over two kinds of issues. One was "corrective action," in which the state had to develop a plan to make sure that eligible children received the medical and dental services they are entitled to. For example, the state must provide toll free numbers that offer "prompt service by a person who is knowledgeable, helpful, and polite. It must provide health care training about "early and periodic diagnosis and treatment" at medical and dental schools. I'm not going to go through the whole list. Basically, the state is responsible for seeing that all eligible kids get their medical and dental checkups--and that includes outreach and transportation--and for tracking the number and percent who get them, including the separate category of children of migrant farmworkers. All corrective issues were negotiated by the attorney general's office, and the total cost was $45 million.
The big sticking point was the reimbursement rate paid to providers (primarily doctors and dentists). This is a political decision, and the politicians (Ogden, Chisum, Guillen, John Davis, Leticia van de Putte, and others) did the negotiating. The Legislature has a horrible record in this area. The reimbursement rate for dentists was 10% of the American Dental Association's recommended rate. For doctors, the state paid Medicaid patients about a third of the Medicare rate of $98. The 2003 budget cuts reduced reimbursements to 1993 levels, and the consequence was that more and more doctors simply refused to treat Medicaid patients because the reimbursement rates were inadequate. The main reason that the state was out of compliance was the lack of doctors who would treat the patients.
The Senate had already signaled the state's good faith by including $250 million to raise provider rates in the appropriations bills for each chamber. Finance chairman Ogden played the bad cop, reminding the plaintiffs that he couldn't pass a budget if it spent so much money that Republicans voted against it. Eventually, the two sides agreed on raising the doctors' reimbursement rate by a total of 25% (the last step was a $10 increase, from $41 to $51 per visit), and the dentists' rate by a total of 50%. The plaintiffs made the point that reimbursement rates alone were not enough; the state had to do something about serving kids who live in areas where no providers available. Chisum and Guillen came up with the idea of mobile clinics, and that sealed the deal. The total cost to the state for the next biennium is $706,700,000, which will yield more than $1 billion in federal matching funds--almost to the dollar what Chisum had estimated the state would have to pay to get a settlement.
In a previous posting about the Frew case, my headline was "We're Frew with Frew!" That was too cavalier. We're not through. We just don't have to go to court. The consent decree remains in effect. The state is obligated to live up to the promises it made, not only in the consent decree but also in the settlement. Judge Justice still presides over the case. The Legislature is going to have to continue increasing provider rates, and the studies it is obligated to undertake are going to have to show that a high percentage of kids are actually getting the services available. Only then can the state contemplate going back to court and show that it is in sufficient compliance with the consent decree to have it dissolved.
Dewhurst/Interfaith Group Miscommunication Continues
David Dewhurst responded by letter to Dallas Area Interfaith, whose leader criticized the lieutenant governor for failing to meet with his organization to discuss CHIP eligibility. But the letter raises more questions than it answers:
"Dear Mr. Bennett:
I was surprised to learn today that your organization held a news conference at the State Capitol to criticize me for refusing to meet with the representatives of the Network of Texas Organizations regarding the CHIP program. You only sent my office a letter yesterday requesting a meeting, and my staff told your office they were processing your request.
Given this fact, I can only conclude that you are more interested in politicizing this issue than working with the Legislature to ensure that every eligible child is enrolled in the CHIP program.
As Lieutenant Governor, I have been a champion for children and a strong supporter of CHIP, and I believe that every eligible child should be enrolled in the program. As someone who has worked to increase funding for this worthwhile program, I would be happy to meet with you to discuss your concerns and ideas. Please contact Sylvia Anguiano in my office at (512-463-0001) to schedule an appointment at a time that is convenient.
Sincerely,
David Dewhurst
Lieutenant Governor"
After receiving the letter, I called Willie Bennett of Dallas Area Interfaith, Network of Texas Organizations. Dallas Interfaith represents 50 congregations in Dallas and Collin Counties, and the Network of Texas Organizations have represents 11 organizations similar to his.
"This is a longstanding thing beyond the request for a meeting we asked for Tuesday," Bennett said. "We have requested meetings throughout his term as lieutenant governor."
Bennett said the Network of Texas Organizations was told that Dewhurst's policy required groups to be screened by a staff member before meeting with him. "We followed their protocol of meeting with a staff person first but over the years that has not led to a meeting with him," he said.
"We explained all this to his staff yesterday," he added.
The real issue, Bennett said, is that Dewhurst appears to be blocking adoption of 12-month eligibility, rather than 6-month, for CHIP. The House has already signed off on the more lenient 12-month policy. "We really need to meet with him in person" to explain the organization's position, Bennett said. "We look to rectify that here shortly."
Bennett seemed mystified by the tempest. "We're not talking about a few people -- it's a large organization," he said. "We've meet with governors before."
"Dear Mr. Bennett:
I was surprised to learn today that your organization held a news conference at the State Capitol to criticize me for refusing to meet with the representatives of the Network of Texas Organizations regarding the CHIP program. You only sent my office a letter yesterday requesting a meeting, and my staff told your office they were processing your request.
Given this fact, I can only conclude that you are more interested in politicizing this issue than working with the Legislature to ensure that every eligible child is enrolled in the CHIP program.
As Lieutenant Governor, I have been a champion for children and a strong supporter of CHIP, and I believe that every eligible child should be enrolled in the program. As someone who has worked to increase funding for this worthwhile program, I would be happy to meet with you to discuss your concerns and ideas. Please contact Sylvia Anguiano in my office at (512-463-0001) to schedule an appointment at a time that is convenient.
Sincerely,
David Dewhurst
Lieutenant Governor"
After receiving the letter, I called Willie Bennett of Dallas Area Interfaith, Network of Texas Organizations. Dallas Interfaith represents 50 congregations in Dallas and Collin Counties, and the Network of Texas Organizations have represents 11 organizations similar to his.
"This is a longstanding thing beyond the request for a meeting we asked for Tuesday," Bennett said. "We have requested meetings throughout his term as lieutenant governor."
Bennett said the Network of Texas Organizations was told that Dewhurst's policy required groups to be screened by a staff member before meeting with him. "We followed their protocol of meeting with a staff person first but over the years that has not led to a meeting with him," he said.
"We explained all this to his staff yesterday," he added.
The real issue, Bennett said, is that Dewhurst appears to be blocking adoption of 12-month eligibility, rather than 6-month, for CHIP. The House has already signed off on the more lenient 12-month policy. "We really need to meet with him in person" to explain the organization's position, Bennett said. "We look to rectify that here shortly."
Bennett seemed mystified by the tempest. "We're not talking about a few people -- it's a large organization," he said. "We've meet with governors before."
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Dewhurst Reaches Boiling Point
Cue the music from The Twilight Zone: As reporters gathered to pose questions to David Dewhurst after today's Senate session, John Whitmire walked by and commented to a staff member, "I don't even know what a normal day around here is anymore."
He should have stuck around.
The press briefing began normally enough, with Steve Ogden and Judith Zaffirini flanking Dewhurst as he convincingly praised the Senate Finance Committee's product, which will be heard on the floor tomorrow. Good stuff for public ed, higher ed, and still, the committee was able to find a fair way to deal with the Frew settlement.
So far, so good.
Then San Antonio Express-News reporter Gary Scharrar asked about differences between the House and Senate on CHIP eligibility, mentioning that a group of pastors held a press conference this morning calling Dewhurst a hypocrite. He repeated the widely-disseminated blog-posting by the Lone Star Project criticizing Dewhurst for advocating six-month re-ups for CHIP parents, while some of Dewhurst's businesses failed to keep up with required government filings.
Ogden leaned into the microphones and noted how much more money the Senate bill would invest in CHIP: 1.8 billion, up from 1 billion. And Dewhurst reminded reporters how he and Ogden stood up for CHIP in 2003 in conference committee negotiations with the House.
Then Dewhurst's temperature started to rise. The whole argument about twelve-month eligility versus six-months "has been made up by zealots and magnified by the press," he said.
Then it was Zaffirini's turn to try to keep the calm. She praised Dewhurst for being a "great champion" of Medicaid, which after all, is a higher priority than CHIP.
Dewhurst's press secretary signaled last question, and Scharrar followed up: The pastors group complained that it had not been able to meet with Dewhurst, despite calling for an appointment for several months.
"I have the most-open office approach of anyone," Dewhurst said.
As he stepped away from the podium, Scharrar handed him a letter signed by the ministers requesting the meeting. While the letter was dated today, it mentions the group has had difficulty obtaining a meeting with Dewhurst.
Seeing the date, Dewhurst blew up. "This is dated today? They're complaining and they just asked for the meeting today?" he said in disbelief. "Shame on you! Shame on you! How dare you!" he went on, flinging the letter back at Scharrar. "We have never seen this, but we will call them to come in." And then he stalked off.
Adding to the surrealness of the moment, Zaffirini stood three feet from the outburst, but never lost focus on her CHIP/Medicaid message.
The meltdown was perhaps not surprising given the stress Dewhurst has been under recently. Senate members unhappy with his leadership have tried to round up votes to block the budget bill on the floor to protest Zaffirini's appointment to the conference committee. And Dewhurst's banner campaign issue -- Jessica's law -- has been stalled for lack of votes on the Senate floor.
Dewhurst's position on Jessica's Law has frustrated many senators, who oppose it on the advice of prosecutors and victim's groups. They say an automatic death penalty would actually make it more difficult to prosecute cases as victims must often testify against family members. An automatic death penalty would likely silence those victims.
Negotiations have been ongoing, though senators question the presence of Dewhurst political advisers at those meetings. Dewhurst at one point told a senator he would campaign against him in his district if continued to oppose the bill.
But Bob Duell, the Senate sponsor, assured me late this morning that a compromise had been reached that he believed Dewhurst could support. "It seems reasonable," Duell said. The death penalty would not apply except for second, aggravated cases of sexual assaults of children.
Meanwhile, Florence Shapiro's SB 78, which creates a new offense of "continued sexual assault," has been awaiting a floor hearing for two weeks, despite widespread Senate support.
Senators from both parties talk openly about Dewhurst's "laser-like focus" on his 2010 guberatorial bid, and say they believe good public policy has been subjugated to political ambition. "It's too bad he thinks we're his campaign committee," one senator told me.
Do we really have to have a session in 2009?
He should have stuck around.
The press briefing began normally enough, with Steve Ogden and Judith Zaffirini flanking Dewhurst as he convincingly praised the Senate Finance Committee's product, which will be heard on the floor tomorrow. Good stuff for public ed, higher ed, and still, the committee was able to find a fair way to deal with the Frew settlement.
So far, so good.
Then San Antonio Express-News reporter Gary Scharrar asked about differences between the House and Senate on CHIP eligibility, mentioning that a group of pastors held a press conference this morning calling Dewhurst a hypocrite. He repeated the widely-disseminated blog-posting by the Lone Star Project criticizing Dewhurst for advocating six-month re-ups for CHIP parents, while some of Dewhurst's businesses failed to keep up with required government filings.
Ogden leaned into the microphones and noted how much more money the Senate bill would invest in CHIP: 1.8 billion, up from 1 billion. And Dewhurst reminded reporters how he and Ogden stood up for CHIP in 2003 in conference committee negotiations with the House.
Then Dewhurst's temperature started to rise. The whole argument about twelve-month eligility versus six-months "has been made up by zealots and magnified by the press," he said.
Then it was Zaffirini's turn to try to keep the calm. She praised Dewhurst for being a "great champion" of Medicaid, which after all, is a higher priority than CHIP.
Dewhurst's press secretary signaled last question, and Scharrar followed up: The pastors group complained that it had not been able to meet with Dewhurst, despite calling for an appointment for several months.
"I have the most-open office approach of anyone," Dewhurst said.
As he stepped away from the podium, Scharrar handed him a letter signed by the ministers requesting the meeting. While the letter was dated today, it mentions the group has had difficulty obtaining a meeting with Dewhurst.
Seeing the date, Dewhurst blew up. "This is dated today? They're complaining and they just asked for the meeting today?" he said in disbelief. "Shame on you! Shame on you! How dare you!" he went on, flinging the letter back at Scharrar. "We have never seen this, but we will call them to come in." And then he stalked off.
Adding to the surrealness of the moment, Zaffirini stood three feet from the outburst, but never lost focus on her CHIP/Medicaid message.
The meltdown was perhaps not surprising given the stress Dewhurst has been under recently. Senate members unhappy with his leadership have tried to round up votes to block the budget bill on the floor to protest Zaffirini's appointment to the conference committee. And Dewhurst's banner campaign issue -- Jessica's law -- has been stalled for lack of votes on the Senate floor.
Dewhurst's position on Jessica's Law has frustrated many senators, who oppose it on the advice of prosecutors and victim's groups. They say an automatic death penalty would actually make it more difficult to prosecute cases as victims must often testify against family members. An automatic death penalty would likely silence those victims.
Negotiations have been ongoing, though senators question the presence of Dewhurst political advisers at those meetings. Dewhurst at one point told a senator he would campaign against him in his district if continued to oppose the bill.
But Bob Duell, the Senate sponsor, assured me late this morning that a compromise had been reached that he believed Dewhurst could support. "It seems reasonable," Duell said. The death penalty would not apply except for second, aggravated cases of sexual assaults of children.
Meanwhile, Florence Shapiro's SB 78, which creates a new offense of "continued sexual assault," has been awaiting a floor hearing for two weeks, despite widespread Senate support.
Senators from both parties talk openly about Dewhurst's "laser-like focus" on his 2010 guberatorial bid, and say they believe good public policy has been subjugated to political ambition. "It's too bad he thinks we're his campaign committee," one senator told me.
Do we really have to have a session in 2009?
Still Brewing
I wasn't surprised to answer my cell phone yesterday and hear the words, "Can you speak to Governor Dewhurst?" I could guess what Lite Gov wanted to talk about: "A Cauldron is Brewing in the Senate," an item I posted last Thursday about tensions in the Senate that threatened to derail the budget bill. The post reported that a group of conservative senators were unhappy about the as-yet-unannounced- but-widely-presumed makeup of the conference committee and also at Dewhurst's using the budget to further his political ambition to be governor by feeding pork to South Texas. The item was based upon conversations with senators. I do not deal in gossip. What, never? Well, hardly ever. And not this time.
Our conversation went something like this:
Dewhurst: "I just wanted to thank you for helping me get the budget out of committee by a 15-0 vote. After your piece came out, several senators came into my office and wanted me to know that they weren't unhappy about the budget at all.
Me: "I'm happy to have been of service, governor.
Dewhurst: "We need to have you in for lunch."
I wanted to ask if I was to be the guest or the entree, but I suppose I'll find out soon enough.
Now, to get to the point of this posting:
My report was accurate then. It is still accurate now. I stand by the story, every word of it. The budget bill is out of committee, but conservative senators are working actively to round up eleven votes to block the bill from coming to the floor under the 2/3 rule. They think they can get them. This comes directly from one of the senators involved and was confirmed by another Republican senator who is not on Finance but has been privvy to the conversations.
Our conversation went something like this:
Dewhurst: "I just wanted to thank you for helping me get the budget out of committee by a 15-0 vote. After your piece came out, several senators came into my office and wanted me to know that they weren't unhappy about the budget at all.
Me: "I'm happy to have been of service, governor.
Dewhurst: "We need to have you in for lunch."
I wanted to ask if I was to be the guest or the entree, but I suppose I'll find out soon enough.
Now, to get to the point of this posting:
My report was accurate then. It is still accurate now. I stand by the story, every word of it. The budget bill is out of committee, but conservative senators are working actively to round up eleven votes to block the bill from coming to the floor under the 2/3 rule. They think they can get them. This comes directly from one of the senators involved and was confirmed by another Republican senator who is not on Finance but has been privvy to the conversations.
Sauce for the Gander
One of the low points of the session was Lieutenant Governor Dewhurst's explanation back in January of why families eligibile for the Children's Health Insurance Program should have to sign up twice a year instead of annually: "I don't think most people in Texas have a lot of sympathy for someone that can't fill out a two-page application every six months.'' Now the Washington-based Lone Star Project, which is headed by former Martin Frost staffer Matt Angle, is reporting that "David Dewhurst himself has repeatedly failed to complete and file routine forms needed to do business legally in Texas." The report goes on to say, "At least six times, businesses directed by, or connected to, David Dewhurst failed to fill out required forms in a timely fashion. In fact, David Dewhurst Investment Partnership was issued a Notice of Cancellation by the Texas Secretary of State on December 6, 2006, for failing to file a periodic report that is required only once every four years."
Of all the programs in state government to be against, why would Dewhurst single out CHIP? It's not a welfare program; participating families have to pay premiums. It's not an entitlement; when the funds run out, no more families can be served. The federal government picks up much of the tab, and the state's share is a drop in the bucket compared to Medicaid. The only reason to favor six months' eligibility is that you want to cover fewer children--we know from experience that the shorter eligibility period will result in around 100,000 fewer children receiving coverage--but why would you want to? You can make a personal-responsibility argument, but to what end? Is it really worth adding 100,000 kids to the already shameful number of uninsured people in this state? It was one thing to raise the eligibility bar in 2003, when the state faced a $10 billion shortfall, but it's quite another thing to raise it now, when the treasury is full. I don't get it.
Of all the programs in state government to be against, why would Dewhurst single out CHIP? It's not a welfare program; participating families have to pay premiums. It's not an entitlement; when the funds run out, no more families can be served. The federal government picks up much of the tab, and the state's share is a drop in the bucket compared to Medicaid. The only reason to favor six months' eligibility is that you want to cover fewer children--we know from experience that the shorter eligibility period will result in around 100,000 fewer children receiving coverage--but why would you want to? You can make a personal-responsibility argument, but to what end? Is it really worth adding 100,000 kids to the already shameful number of uninsured people in this state? It was one thing to raise the eligibility bar in 2003, when the state faced a $10 billion shortfall, but it's quite another thing to raise it now, when the treasury is full. I don't get it.
