The Center for American Progress fills in some more details about Sinclair, the owner of several ABC affiliates which won't be showing tonight's Nightline. To put it mildly, these guys have been strongly supportive of President Bush. Check it out, and scroll down to the bottom of the page for a link to get CAP's stuff via email.
As noted yesterday by the Yellow Dog Blog, this special session has essentially ceased to be about school finance reform and is instead focusing first on property taxes, with maybe some school stuff thrown in if they can. In particular, that means if the gambling expansion goes through. No gambling, no extra school money. That's the kind of leadership we have.
Here are the "highlights", such as they are. I note that there's now a school finance blog, which has some of the actual legislative info, so check it out (via BOR).
Rep. Kent Grusendorf, R-Arlington, said he hopes to have a version for action by the House Select Committee on Public School Finance on Saturday that the 150-member House can debate next week."I don't think we want the school community up in arms," committee Chairman Grusendorf said during a 15-minute meeting billed earlier as the panel's chance to approve the plan.
A factor in the delay could be a South Texas legislator's concern over a computer analysis suggesting Rio Grande Valley districts will get less aid under the plan than they would if lawmakers kept the "Robin Hood" system, which this year required property-rich districts to share $1.2 billion with others.
Rep. Rene Oliveira, D-Brownsville, awaiting an explanation from GOP leaders, said: "If there is a defect in this model, it's better for us to find out now and address it. This is probably the most important legislation most of my colleagues will ever vote on. We need to slow this thing down and make sure we're doing the right things."
Panel expects to pass plan
The legislation and a companion constitutional amendment that would legalize video gambling machines are expected to be voted on Saturday by the House Select Committee on Public Education.The measures could then be considered by the full House next week at the halfway point of the 30-day special session.
Committee Chairman Kent Grusendorf, R-Arlington, said he expects the 29-member panel to approve the two measures Saturday.
"I think we have consensus," he said, referring to latest version of the 400-page bill that would overhaul the school funding system and reduce property taxes by about 30 percent.
The Republican lawmaker cautioned that additional funding for schools is probably contingent on the Legislature agreeing to legalize video gambling machines at seven dog and horse tracks and three American Indian reservations in the state.
No gambling, no help for schools
"Right now we don't have a backup plan," said Rep. Talmadge Heflin, R-Houston, House Appropriations Committee chairman. "My guess is if the VLT (video lottery terminals) didn't go, then there'd probably be some reduction in spending money."Rep. Kent Grusendorf, chairman of the House Select Committee on Public School Finance, said he thinks most lawmakers' top priority is reducing property taxes. Supporters of increased school spending expressed dismay that funding education has become linked to gambling. Dick Lavine, a fiscal analyst for the Center for Public Policy Priorities, which advocates for fairness in taxation and education funding, said lawmakers have their priorities "upside down."
Opposition to gambling mounting
"I think the leadership recognizes there is a growing group of people who are opposed to this," said state Rep. Linda Harper-Brown, R-Irving, who claims to have some 25 signatures of House members firmly opposed, so far.She would need 51 "no" votes to be absolutely certain of blocking it: A constitutional amendment legalizing slot machines requires 100 votes in the 150-member House, where Republicans hold an 88-62 advantage over Democrats. Two-thirds of the state Senate and a majority of Texas voters would also have to approve it.
With such high stakes, state lawmakers are already making contingency plans in case opponents marshal enough support to stop the slot machines, technically known as video lottery terminals, or VLTs.
Failure to add them as a new source of state revenue will blow an estimated $1.5 billion hole in the latest House school finance package -- about the same amount of new education money the bill envisions for the 2006-07 budget cycle.
The bill is tentatively scheduled for a vote in a House committee this weekend.
"If VLTs go down, that's a huge part of this. Where do you go then?" said Bob Richter, a spokesman for House Speaker Tom Craddick, R-Midland. "I think they are concerned about that and what to do it if goes down."
Bipartisan opposition to gambling
Rep. Rene Oliveira, D-Brownsville, said some of his party members are willing to vote against constitutional amendments that include video lottery terminals and other revenue-raising measures if Republicans don't budge on a sales tax increase."The Democrats' position is that the sales tax unfairly shifts the burden to the middle class, poor and fixed-income individuals," Oliveira said.
Much business whining
"We're getting too much of the load," said Wade Sullivan, a Ford dealer in Crockett.Under the plan, sales taxes on cars would jump, from 6.25 percent to 7.75 percent. For the buyer of a $20,000 car, the sales tax would rise $300, to $1,550.
Car dealers also would have to charge a 6.75 percent sales tax on mechanics' labor, not just on repair parts. And they would have to foot a new payroll tax.
"There's no doubt they want to punish people who drive," said Tom Blanton, vice president for legislative affairs at the Texas Automobile Dealers Association.
Many businesses were furious that the House on Wednesday did an about-face and scrapped a day-old proposal to expand the sales tax to services by lawyers, accountants, Realtors, architects, engineers, interior designers, barbers and beauticians.
"Obviously, haircuts are more important to these people than the ability to get around," said Mr. Blanton, who represents 1,400 car dealers. He said the payroll tax is "the job-killer tax, probably the most insidious of all."
No new booze taxes - yet
"In the beginning, everything was on the table," said Robert Black, a spokesman for Mr. Perry. "But after weeding things out, that simply didn't make it into the plan."The liquor lobby has long been among the most powerful and influential in Austin. According to the Institute on Money in State Politics, about $1.5 million was given to Texas candidates in 2002 by beer, wine and liquor interests.
Despite the fierce efforts of lobbyists, some lawmakers are angling to tack a beer and liquor measure as a school-finance plan reaches the House floor. On Thursday, Rep. Charlie Howard, R-Sugar Land, filed a bill that seeks an additional 1 percent sales tax on ale, beer, wine and malt liquor, among other drinks.
Legislators and lobbyists have disappeared into the back halls of the Capitol to hammer out a deal, with some looking to replace funding options they don't like by tossing others into the pot.
Some House members, like Richardson Republican Fred Hill, want the liquor industry to share more of the burden.
"I would think it's [tax increase on beer] gaining momentum," said Mr. Hill, who is expected to introduce an amendment raising the taxes on alcohol.
Officials from the Texas beer industry say they already pay high taxes and fees.
Mike McKinney, a lobbyist for the Wholesale Beer Distributors of Texas, said the Texas beer industry bears the eighth-highest tax burden per capita in the nation – $26.90 annually, including state and federal excise taxes on barrels of beer and sales taxes.
"We are taxed a good deal higher than the national average," Mr. McKinney told the House committee studying school finance. "We're also quite a bit higher than our neighbors."
The Texas per capita rate is double that in Louisiana and $7 more than the industry is taxed in Oklahoma, according to industry figures.
"We're always concerned about letting the neighboring states capture part of our market because we get beyond them," said Dennis Bonnen, R-Angleton. "I see two states immediately where we're [taxed] better than twice what they are."
Mr. Hill, though, said the overall per capita tax numbers could be misleading because they don't factor the massive quantities of beer consumed in the Lone Star state.
Mr. McKinney conceded that point: "We do drink a lot more beer in Texas than they do in Arkansas."
If they limited this one to only taxing wimpy downstream brands like Bud and Miller, I'd support it. It'd practically be a public service.
If at first you don't succeed, reduce the charges.
The Enron Task Force had successfully sought an indictment on two counts of felony conspiracy and four counts of making false tax statements. On Thursday, those six charges were replaced with one count of willfully delivering a joint 2000 tax form reporting more than $48 million in income to the Internal Revenue Service even though she knew it to be fraudulent.Lea Fastow, 44, could face a maximum 12-month prison term on the one charge, though prosecutors are likely to ask U.S. District Judge David Hittner for a lesser sentence.
On April 7, Hittner refused to give Fastow the five-month prison term she'd previously worked out with prosecutors. At that time she withdrew her prior guilty plea to one felony tax charge.
"This restructure of her case as a misdemeanor validates the theory that the charges against Lea Fastow were always intended as leverage against her husband," said Jacob Frenkel, a Washington, D.C.-based former federal prosecutor and Securities and Exchange Commission lawyer.
The government had previously told Hittner that Fastow "played an integral role in her husband's decision to plead guilty and cooperate with the government in this ongoing investigation."
Andrew Fastow, originally charged with 98 counts, pleaded guilty to two felony charges and faces a maximum 10-year prison term for his role in fraud at the scandal-ridden Enron. But his cooperation with the government has already bolstered cases against ex-Chief Executive Officer Jeff Skilling and ex-top accounting officer Rick Causey.
Several criminal defense lawyers who practice in federal courts said Thursday the current Justice Department is loath to drop felony charges down to misdemeanors as has been done in this case.
"It's extremely unusual," said Houston-based defense lawyer Kent Schaffer. "Obviously this is a case the government didn't want to try, and obviously they want to keep Andy Fastow happy."
Legal onlookers say both sides win here, even if the judge sentences Lea Fastow to the full 12 months.
She wins because she will not have a felony record. That means she will not be banned from voting and she will not have the stigma of being a felon, which could keep her, a former businesswoman and future nursing student, from some future employment.
Many lawyers say even if she gets the maximum sentence, because she's a first-time offender there is a good chance the Bureau of Prisons would release her into a halfway house well before that might happen were she a felon.
The government wins, too, because it did not want to lose Andrew Fastow's enthusiastic cooperation, especially as it continues to pursue and investigate ex-Enron Chairman Ken Lay.
"When Judge Hittner said no to the earlier plea bargain, it put the government in overdrive to keep the peace with the Fastows and not take away from its continuing investigation," Schaffer said.
Makes perfect sense to me. I'm certainly not an apologist for Lea Fastow, but she's not the big picture here. Jeff Skilling is, and getting Andy Fastow fully on board to testify against Skilling is the goal. If that means Lea gets six months in Club Fed instead of 12, I've got no complaints.
Speaking of Skilling, by the way, his lawyers have struck back on the weird New York public intoxication incident.
Lawyers for former Enron Chief Executive Jeff Skilling on Wednesday accused the government of unnecessarily prejudicing the jury pool and improperly releasing his high blood alcohol level.Federal prosecutors are asking that Skilling be placed under a midnight curfew and post an additional $2 million bond after a drunken incident in New York City.
"The Task Force has gone out of its way to publicly and unfairly distort the events and place full culpability and responsibility on Mr. Skilling," said the court papers filed by Skilling's Los Angeles-based lead trial counsel, Daniel Petrocelli.
Enron Task Force prosecutors told the court in a public filing last week that Skilling violated his $5 million bond in Manhattan earlier this month by being severely intoxicated, trying to lift a woman's blouse in search of an FBI wiretap and attempting to steal a car's license plate.
The government filing said that after police took Skilling to a hospital the morning of April 9, his blood alcohol level was 0.19 — nearly twice the legal driving limit of 0.10 in many states.
According to Petrocelli's papers, prosecutors have specifically asked that Skilling's travel be restricted, he report weekly rather than monthly to pretrial officials and his bond be raised from $5 million to $7 million.
Skilling's lawyers argue that the Houston pretrial services recommendations, which are not available to the public, are more appropriate and only call for new bond conditions regarding Skilling's use of alcohol. They say Skilling has already "begun to comply with the new conditions," although not yet ordered to do so.
"There is no bona fide justification for this attempt to impose such harsh, unreasonable restraints other than a desire to inflict as much hardship as possible on Mr. Skilling," said Petrocelli in the filing.
The defense motion filed Wednesday asks that U.S. Magistrate Judge Frances Stacy adopt the recommendation of the pretrial services office and ignore the government. Stacy set the initial terms of Skilling's bond in February when he was indicted on 35 felony charges in connection with the scandal-ridden company's collapse.
And the prosecutors have responded to those charges.
Enron Task Force prosecutor Linda Lacewell told U.S. Magistrate Frances Stacy in court papers that nothing about Skilling's behavior since the April 9 incident outside a Manhattan cigar bar should convince the court that he will adhere to the existing restrictions in his $5 million bond.Prosecutors have said Skilling violated his bond by being severely intoxicated, trying to lift a woman's blouse in search of an FBI wiretap and attempting to steal a car's license plate. The government said that after police took Skilling to a hospital the morning of April 9, his blood alcohol level was 0.19, nearly twice the legal driving limit of 0.10 in many states.
Skilling's lawyers accused the government on Wednesday of unnecessarily prejudicing the jury pool and improperly releasing his high blood alcohol level.
Lacewell countered Thursday that Skilling's own lawyers were making public statements about the event and that he waived the medical record privacy rights so this investigation could be conducted.
"Given how he behaved during the evening of April 8 and the morning of April 9, it is understandable why Skilling would want to deflect attention from his own misconduct by attacking the government with unfounded allegations," Lacewell said in the filing.
Prosecutors are asking that Skilling be placed under a midnight curfew, post an additional $2 million bond, restrict his travel to Texas and report to pretrial services weekly rather than monthly.
Much as I've enjoyed all of the guiltry pleas so far, seeing this sucker go to trial is going to be more fun than a trashy miniseries (or trashy made-for-TV movie). Get your popcorn makers warmed up now, folks, this one will be a hoot.
It is extremely difficult for me to understand this, which comes via Atrios.
NewsBlues.com is reporting [no free link] that Sinclair Broadcast Group has ordered its ABC-affiliated stations not to carry tomorrow's "Nightline," which will air the names and photos of soldiers who have been killed in combat in Iraq.Sinclair General Counsel Barry Faber tells the site: "We find it to be contrary to the public interest."
The boycott will affect eight ABC-affiliated Sinclair stations.
>>>>
STATEMENT OF THE SINCLAIR BROADCAST GROUP
The ABC Television network announced on Tuesday that the Friday, April 30th edition of “Nightline” will consist entirely of Ted Koppel reading aloud the names of U.S. servicemen and women killed in action in Iraq. Despite the denials by a spokeswoman for the show the action appears to be motivated by a political agenda designed to undermine the efforts of the United States in Iraq.While the Sinclair Broadcast Group honors the memory of the brave members of the military who have sacrificed their lives in the service of our country, we do not believe such political statements should be disguised as news content. As a result, we have decided to preempt the broadcast of “Nightline” this Friday on each of our stations which air ABC programming.
We understand that our decision in this matter may be questioned by some. Before you judge our decision, however, we would ask that you first question Mr. Koppel as to why he chose to read the names of the 523 troops killed in combat in Iraq, rather than the names of the thousands of private citizens killed in terrorists attacks since and including the events of September 11, 2001. In his answer, you will find the real motivation behind his action scheduled for this Friday.
I've printed the ABC News response to Sinclair beneath the More link.
About a mile from my house, just in front of the Height post office, is a World War II memorial. It sits on the esplanade of Heights Boulevard, the historic main drag through my neighborhood, and commemorates the young men from the Heights who served and died in that war. (I really need to take some pictures of it - it's a very well-done memorial. Maybe tomorrow.) The Vietnam memorial in Washington is of course a huge wall with the names of all of the dead etched into it. Is there anyone who would suggest there was anything remotely improper about the public display of those names?
If hearing those names and seeing those faces makes you angry, well, it should. If it makes you question why we're there and how we got there in the first place, again, it should. That doesn't mean that your anger has to be directed in any one specific place, nor does it mean that you have to answer those questions in any one specific way. But there's nothing noble about ducking the questions, or hiding from the names and faces. This is the price we've paid. I believe we're all grown up enough to decide on our own whether or not it has been worth it, but apparently Sinclair doesn't, and its viewers are the lesser for it. (Atrios has a list of those stations, and their contact info, by the way.)
As for the comment about reading the names being a political statement in and of itself, well, as Taegen Goddard points out, Sinclair has a definite political interest here as well.
ABC NEWS STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO SINCLAIR
We respectfully disagree with Sinclair's decision to pre-empt "Nightline's" tribute to America's fallen soldiers which will air this Friday, April 30. The Nightline broadcast is an expression of respect which simply seeks to honor those who have laid down their lives for this country. ABC News is dedicated to thoughtful and balanced coverage and reports on the events shaping our world with neither fear nor favor -- as our audience expects, deserves, and rightly demands. Contrary to the statement issued by Sinclair, which takes issue with our level of coverage of the effects of terrorism on our citizens, ABC News and all of our broadcasts, including "Nightline," have reported hundreds of stories on 9-11. Indeed, on the first anniversary of 9-11, ABC News broadcast the names of the victims of that horrific attack.
In sum, we are particularly proud of the journalism and award winning coverage ABC News has produced since September 11, 2001. ABC News will continue to report on all facets of the war in Iraq and the War on Terrorism in a manner consistent with the standards which ABC News has set for decades.
Early voting has started for the May 15 election of City Proposition #1, which would allow Houston to opt out of the pension guarantee that was enacted last September. The numbers are scary (and getting scarier), but I'm rather torn as to whether or not this is the right thing to do. I've read both Greg, who's voting Yes, and Kevin, who's voting No, and I'm still undecided though leaning very slightly towards Yes.
For what it's worth, I attended a meeting of the Heights Democratic Club a few weeks ago, and much of the meeting was a discussion of Prop 1. Both sides made a good case, with City Council member Adrian Garcia presenting the Yes viewpoint. In my mind, the matter largely comes down to how much you trust Mayor White with this hot potato. I don't think he's going to screw anyone, and that nudges me gently towards a Yes vote. But I'm not quite there yet. And I need to get wherever I'm going sooner rather than later, because I'm going to a wedding on the 15th, so it's early voting or no voting for me.
So the Rockets exited the playoffs last night. A little luck and a little more better execution and they could be 3-2 going into a home Game 6, but it's not to be. Yao Ming has said that just making the playoffs means they get a C for the season. That sounds about right.
I don't have any brilliant ideas about what they need to do for next year. I think rumored trade talk for Steve Francis is misguided, mostly because I don't think they'd be able to get equivalent value for him. I do think Francis can and will work better with Yao, and if I'm wrong they're all in a heap of trouble. One more year, and be prepared to burn it all down and start over with just Yao if there's no progress.
As for the rest of the playoffs, I don't really care who wins as long as it's not the Lakers. The only time in my life I can recall rooting for that team is when they were the lesser of two evils, which is to say only when they played the Celtics in the Finals back in the 80s. I'm not even sure I'd align myself the same way if that were to happen now (not this year, of course). I've tried to feel some warmth and fuzziness for the prospect of Karl Malone and Gary Payton finally winning a championship, but then I remember that I've hated their guts for more than a decade. If I'm going to root for any longtime deserving veteran player this year, it'll be Kevin Garnett. In short: go Spurs, go T-Wolves, go whoever's playing LA. And wait till next year, Rockets.
As promised yesterday, Rep. Lamar Smith filed legislation to once again try to give Bacardi rum a sweetheart trademark deal that isn't available to other American companies.
Smith, R-San Antonio, filed a bill Wednesday to alter U.S. trademark rules to benefit Bacardi, the marketer of Bacardi rum, Dewar's scotch and other recognizable labels.The legislation is similar to a sharply criticized provision that was quietly slipped into the defense appropriations bill last October by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land. After it was revealed that DeLay political committees had received $40,000 from Bacardi, the resulting outcry didn't stop until the provision was stripped out.
Smith, however, sees his bill as more of a slap at Cuban leader Fidel Castro, whose government confiscated a rum-making company in 1960, setting off a chain of events that continues today.
"I don't like to see Castro, or other companies, enrich themselves at the expense of legitimate companies that were seized during Castro's communist revolution," Smith said. "All that does is reward illegitimate, illegal behavior."
Smith has the added advantage of having received no political contributions from Bacardi, but that matters little to Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, an activist group that criticized the DeLay provision and found little to like about Smith's version.
"You've got to wonder why something that helps one company, to the detriment of (others), would go forward," said Melanie Sloan, director of the government-accountability group.
Sloan's answer: money.
Bacardi has contributed about $650,000 to congressional members of both parties since 1997, including $20,000 to Texans for a Republican Majority, a DeLay-sponsored political action committee under investigation for allegedly using corporate money in the 2002 Texas elections in violation of state law.
"This is a bad policy," Sloan said. "The more people hear about it, the more appalled they are."
[...]
CubaExport's claims were dismissed by a federal court based on Section 211 of U.S. trademark law, a provision quietly inserted into a massive 1998 spending bill by former U.S. Sen. Connie Mack, R-Fla. -- a tactic similar to what DeLay would try five years later.
Section 211 barred the United States from registering trademarks associated with property that had been seized by governments without compensation.
Smith's bill, like DeLay's ill-fated provision, would amend Section 211 to answer complaints by the World Trade Organization, which ruled that Section 211 violated copyright treaty obligations. The bill is designed to meet the WTO's objections while continuing to protect Bacardi, critics contend.
"The legislation is important because it will show Americans won't tolerate confiscation without compensation," said Patricia Neal, Bacardi USA spokeswoman.
But several major U.S. companies are working to repeal Section 211 -- including DuPont, General Motors, Eastman Kodak and Halliburton -- based on fears that Castro will retaliate by canceling their trademarks in Cuba.
"We believe that's a red herring," Neal said. "Cuba has sought out foreign investment since the collapse of Soviet subsidies in the 1990s. . . . Confiscating anyone else's trademark would isolate them even more economically than they already are today."
Smith, whose district includes western Travis and Hays counties, is chairman of the House Courts, Internet and Intellectual Property Subcommittee, which will hold a hearing on the bill in the next few weeks, he said.
The bill has 32 co-sponsors, including Reps. John Carter, R-Round Rock, and Henry Bonilla, R-San Antonio.
I've pretty much used up all my snark and indignation on this sorry, corrupt boondoggle. I'm running dry on creative ways to criticize Tom DeLay for his unceasing fealty to corporate slush funds. These stories pretty much speak for themselves. Sadly, issues like this linger like mold in your bathroom tile because so little light gets shined on them. The only other story I see about this is in the DMN, and they barely recap what it's about. The Chron, as usual, isn't paying attention. What a waste.
Anyway. Thanks as always to AJ Garcia for keeping me up to date on this stuff.
Remember those halcyon days of, um, yesterday, when Tom Craddick could say things like this?
The expansion of the sales tax is designed to tap into the growth in the service sector of the Texas economy."The idea of broadening it, that's where the growth in the economy is," said Craddick. "If you broaden it, you pick up that growth."
Yeah, well, it was all a load of crap. The corporate overlords have spoken, and there will be no expansion of the sales tax into the service economy, with the minor exception of auto repair and car washes. As there's not much variation in today's coverage, I'll just point to the stories: Chron, Morning News, Express News, Statesman, Star Telegram. Here's a brief summary of the changes, from the Statesman:
* Providing a larger payroll tax: For-profit businesses would pay 1.25 percent of their wage base or $125 per full-time employee each quarter, whichever is less, compared with 1 percent or $100 per employee under the original proposal.* Keeping the residential and business property tax collections at the local level instead of creating a statewide property tax.
* Raising the general sales tax rate even higher, from its current 6.25 percent to 6.75 percent. Heflin's plan had proposed a 6.5 percent rate.
* Eliminating the proposed sales tax on all but two of 19 services. Auto maintenance and repairs and car washes would still be taxed.
* Increasing the motor vehicle sales tax from the current 6.25 percent to 7.75 percent -- compared with 7.5 percent under Heflin's proposal.
The new version still calls for legalizing video lottery terminals, adding a $1-per-pack tax to cigarettes and charging sales tax on items currently exempt, such as newspapers, magazine subscriptions and coin-operated services.
In addition, the state would put a $1 surcharge on amusement tickets, including those to movie theaters and professional sporting events.
One committee member said the committee is considering lowering the school property tax rate from $1.50 per $100 of value to $1.05 per $100 -- 5 cents higher than what was originally proposed.
I'll get to some of the implications in a minute, but first, one piece mentioned only in the Express News:
Creating a new tax on cigars that would generate almost $6 million a year.
So we've got increases in the cigarette tax and smokeless tobacco tax, plus a new tax on cigars. I had no idea we had such a powerful pipe-smoking lobby in this state. How else to explain how they and only they got off tax-free?
Points to ponder:
1. Leaving property tax collection at the local level may mean no need for a Constitutional amendment. I'm guessing the Attorney General will have to rule on this, but if so, it means that the proposed property tax reductions can be passed by a simple majority in each chamber, so Democrats could not block it so easily. The 2/3 rule in the Senate could still come into play, but as David Dewhurst has already indicated that he's not bound by tradition, I wouldn't bet the farm on it.
2. Whatever increase or expansion of the sales tax goes through, the expectation of revenue from gambling is what's allowing there to be more money for the schools (which, remember, was the original reason for this session) in conjunction with property tax reductions. What happens if the opponents of expanded gambling, such as Sen. Jane Nelson, carry the day? Will the Lege simply go forward with the current tax proposals and not take any action on school funding issues? Surely this wouldn't be seen by the courts as providing a Robin Hood replacement with sufficient funding equity.
3. I'm sure the Democratic caucuses have some strategy in mind over there on the sidelines. I hope I'm not reading anything about it because they're biding their time and waiting to see what gets proposed before they start making noise. They'll need to be clear about why they're taking whatever obstructive action they may pursue, which is that proper funding for schools takes precedence over giving Highland Park homeowners a tax cut. I've said it before and I'll say it again - thanks to the gerrymandered State House districts, they have little to fear from Republicans at the ballot box.
One last item, from the Chron:
The governor visited a home in Pflugerville, in suburban Austin, to renew his call for the Legislature to cut and limit future growth in local property taxes. His proposal includes a 3 percent cap on the annual growth of property tax appraisals.David and Tammy Odom were recently notified that the appraised value of their house, which they purchased about 18 months ago for $165,000, had jumped $8,000 during the past year, meaning their tax bill this year could increase by $240 or more.
Perry said his proposal, if enacted by the Legislature, would cut the Odoms' potential tax increase almost in half.
Raise your hand if you think the retail sales price of the Odoms' house didn't increase by at least as much in the last 18 months as well. So why should I care about the increase in their appraisal? Cap or no cap, when they sell that house the new owner will be taxed on the market value of the house. Why should they be treated any differently?
UPDATE: Sadly, the answer to point #2 appears to be as I feared: no new money for schools. You're damn right I expect the Democrats to vote that down.
Did I miss a memo? Is this National Bash The 17th Amendment Week and nobody told me about it?
Zell Miller, Georgia's maverick Democratic senator, says the nation ought to return to having senators appointed by legislatures rather than elected by voters.Miller, who is retiring in January, was first appointed to his post in 2000 after the death of Paul Coverdell. He said Wednesday that rescinding the 17th Amendment, which declared that senators should be elected, would increase the power of state governments and reduce the influence of Washington special interests.
"The individuals are not so much at fault as the rotten and decaying foundation of what is no longer a republic," Miller said on the Senate floor. "It is the system that stinks. And it's only going to get worse because that perfect balance our brilliant Founding Fathers put in place in 1787 no longer exists."
Well, now. Perhaps someone should call up Zell Miller and ask him how many of the following Bush-touted Constitutional amendments he supports: Gay marriage ban, abortion ban, flag-burning ban, victims' rights, and (must...keep...straight...face) balanced budget. Since he's such an expert on Constitutional feng shui, I'm sure he'll be able to explain why support for any of those proposals is Not The Same Thing.
I think I've figured it out. Now that Vieth v. Jubelirir has officially given state legislatures the power to determine who everyone's Congressperson will be, it follows that we may as well repeal the 17th Amendment and assign all representational power to those state Leges. As a bonus, we won't have as much to worry about with black-box voting machines. It's a win-win! Jim D sees it the same way.
Enjoy your retirement, Zell. I know I speak for many people when I say the Senate will stink a lot less without you.
The Supremes upheld Pennsylvania's redistricting plan in the Vieth v. Jubelirir case, though in doing so they did not throw out the Bandemer precedent.
By a 5-4 vote, the court rejected a challenge by Pennsylvania Democrats to districts that were redrawn after the 2000 census by the state's Republican-controlled legislature. The plaintiffs had argued that the new boundaries were so politically skewed in favor of the Republicans that they violated the constitutional principle of one person, one vote.The case is one of several in which Democrats are challenging new congressional districts that were drawn by GOP-controlled state legislatures following the latest census with the aim of maximizing Republicans' chances of winning elections for the U.S. House of Representatives.
In a decision last week, the Supreme Court declined to review a lower court ruling against a Democratic challenge to a controversial GOP redistricting plan in Texas. But a more substantive appeal against those districts is still pending.
In today's decision, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that political disputes over district boundaries date back to the early 18th century and that "it was generally conceded that each party would attempt to gain power which was not proportionate to its numerical strength."
But Scalia was narrowly rebuffed in an attempt to revisit a 1986 Supreme Court decision that left open the possibility of claims against gerrymandering. He wrote that 18 years of wrangling in the courts over gerrymandering "with virtually nothing to show for it" have shown that such claims are "nonjusticiable" and that the 1986 ruling was wrong.
He was supported in that view by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas. But Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who had voted with the majority to uphold the Pennsylvania boundaries, sided with four justices in refusing to overturn the 1986 ruling, thereby foreclosing future challenges to gerrymandering.
Kennedy, in a separate written opinion, said correcting district boundaries that were drawn for partisan reasons "would commit federal and state courts to unprecedented intervention in the American political process." However, he said the courts must remain open to cases of redistricting that might be unconstitutional.
So basically the extreme partisan gerrymander forced through last year is not illegal on those grounds. There's still a Voting Rights lawsuit left in the system, but as I've said before, the lines we have now are reality. Time to make some lemonade, you know what I mean? Via Nosey.
UPDATE: The local reaction:
J. Gerald Hebert, a lawyer representing Democrats in that case, said Wednesday's ruling shows a court majority is clearly concerned that partisan gerrymandering can violate constitutional rights."The search for a standard goes on, but there is a clear warning shot to legislators who are more interested in partisan greed than in fairness, democracy and equal representation," Hebert said.
National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Reynolds said the Supreme Court upheld a political tradition.
"We're very pleased by today's decision affirming that redistricting is a political process and congressional boundaries can be drawn based on political criteria," Reynolds said. "This practice is not new and is used by both parties. It is a victory for the redistricting process, and we're looking forward to moving on."
Sadly, I think Reynolds' take is closer to reality. Here's also a bit more on Justice Kenndy's position:
Justice Anthony Kennedy joined the majority in rejecting the Pennsylvania case. But he said the absence of an objective standard to measure partisan gerrymanders does not rule out of the emergence of one in the future."If a state passed an enactment that declared, `All future apportionment shall be drawn so as most to burden Party X's rights to fair and effective representation ... ,' we would surely conclude the Constitution had been violated," Kennedy wrote. "If that is so, we should admit the possibility remains that a legislature might attempt to reach the same result without that express directive."
Kennedy said the court may want to pursue whether a standard could be reached under claims that partisan gerrymanders violate a person's First Amendment rights of free speech and free association.
Sure seems like a narrow target to me. As I said, this is the hand we're dealt. We can play it or not, but we're not getting any more cards.
UPDATE: Greg Wythe is pissed.
UPDATE: Greg Morrow has a proposal.
I just have one question for you, Norbizness: is your rap lyrics to middle management translator a skill you list on resumes? I'd hire you for it.
Whatever else one may say about Tom DeLay, once he's been bought he has the decency to stay bought. Just ask Bacardi, on whose behalf DeLay has been trying to sneak or force through a bill that would give them exclusive rights to the "Havana Club" rum label in Cuba, even though doing so might damage the intellectual property rights of hundreds of other American companies. (See here, here, here, here, and here for more background.)
Today's update is that yet another bill, HR 4225, has been filed to fulfill Bacardi's wishes at DeLay's behest. What with all of those other pesky scandals surrounding him, though, DeLay got someone else to sponsor the bill for him, in this case Texas' Lamar Smith. No wire reports that I can find as yet, but I have found a couple of press released reactions to the bill, one from the National Foreign Trade Council, and one from Citizens Against Government Waste, both of which were critical of it. I'll keep looking for news accounts to see what the official word is, but for now I take heart in knowing that DeLay's efforts have all been for naught.
By the way, CGAW has an amusingly named WasteBlog, which I just might have to subscribe to. Check it out.
Anyway, thanks to AJ Garcia for the heads up.
Kos teases us with some poll news from CD22:
I've gotten my hands on some polling data from the district, and it's surprisingly poor for [Tom] DeLay. His Approval/Disapprovals are 44/48. On the reelect question, 36 percent would definitely vote for him, 27 percent would consider someone else, and 27 percent would definitely vote for someone else.53 percent of respondents were pro-choice, with only 34 percent following DeLay's strict anti-choice line.
This is apparently a partisan poll, so reach for the salt. It's not crazy to me that this poll may be accurate, though. It wouldn't surprise me at all if DeLay is a hold-your-nose candidate for some number of Republicans in that district. He has drawn primary challengers in the past, though none of them has made him sweat.
Reaching those voters and convincing them there's a better alternative is, of course, the hard part. I firmly believe that Richard Morrison can be the guy to do that, but if it's doable it'll still probably take more than one shot at DeLay to bag him. If Morrison (or Morrison plus former Republican and DeLay primary challenger Michael Fjetland, who's running as an independent) can pull better than 40%, look for a much stronger run in 2006.
(Oh, and check out Morrison's campaign blog, which has been getting regular updates lately.)
Meanwhile, Morris Meyer has a guest post up at Eschaton. That Smokey Joe Barton has a colorful past, doesn't he? I really don't know what kind of traction Meyer (and Morrison, for that matter) is getting, but I've been impressed with their willingness to fight and not concede anything. I didn't realize until I compared the old map with the new one today (see them here) just how much the 6th CD had changed. Maybe incumbency won't help Barton as much as it would have under the old map.
And finally, Martin Frost and Pete Sessions have signed a Clean Campaign pledge, which "commits both candidates to publicly disavow any outside group that advertises without the explicit consent of either candidate." That's a direct result of this ad, which was sponsored by a wacko fringe group that has a history of running such ads. I'll be very interested to see how this plays out.
I suppose I should've subscribed to my own blog's feeds from the get-go, but after reading David's post about Atom, I learned that I don't have a full-post feed of my own. I've created an Atom template, and once I'm sure it's working I'll provide a link for it on the sidebar.
Is anyone else having a problem seeing my blogroll? It just won't display on my work PCs in IE, but I can see it fine at home in Mozilla. I'm rather stumped at this point, so any suggestions are appreciated.
I've noticed a string of referrals today from what looks like web mail systems at pitzer.edu and willamette.edu - I'm guessing someone sent an email at those places which contained a link to one of my posts. I can't see what they're pointing to, so this has piqued my curiosity. Please drop me a note or leave a comment if you know what this was about.
Finally, one last plug for Bloglines. Notifying me when an infrequently-updated blog has new content is currently my favorite part of using an RSS aggregator. Try it, you'll like it.
I largely agree with the logic and conclusions in this story about why not all outsourcing of technology tasks to India has been successful. I have some experience in this kind of matter (which I will not talk about in this space - you'll need to ask me in person if you're interested) and this tracks pretty closely with what I've been through.
One thing this article doesn't explicitly mention is that in the long run, the problems with productivity that related to communication and experience will be worked out. I don't see this as anything but a bump in the road. On the plus side for me personally, I'd rather work in the invention and engineering side of the house than in the operations and production side anyway. I recognize that this is the smaller slice of the labor pie, however. Link via Suburban Guerrilla.
UPDATE: Kevin Drum's experiences are similar to mine.
UPDATE: Linkmeister chimes in with smaller-scale anecdotes.
The state House has released a new plan to overhaul state tax collections as part of school finance reform, and to say the least, it's not timid. It's also not likely to survive in its present form. I think the Statesman summed up reaction to it pretty well:
The initial reviews: reserved kudos from the Senate, studied neutrality from the governor and a scramble by lobbyists to divine the plan's ramifications.
Here's a basic outline of the plan, as reported in the Morning News.
• A slight increase in the state sales tax rate, raising it from 6.25 percent to 6.5 percent. In Dallas, the rate would be 8.5 percent including the local levy. Also, a larger increase in the motor vehicle sales tax would boost the rate from 6.25 percent to 7.5 percent.• Expansion of the sales tax to include a host of services and items. That would include auto repairs, barber and beauty services, residential repairs, legal and accounting services, real estate services and financial services.
• A state payroll tax that would replace the business franchise tax. All for-profit employers would be charged either $400 or 1 percent of annual wages per employee – whichever is less. A similar proposal with a 2.5 percent rate is also under consideration.
• A $1 increase in the state cigarette tax to $1.41 per pack and a slight increase in the state tax on smokeless tobacco. The cigarette tax increase would raise about $700 million a year.
• Legalization of video gambling machines at seven dog and horse tracks and on three American Indian reservations. The maximum 40,000 slot machines that would be authorized would generate $1.5 billion a year.
Other tax and fee increases include a $1 surcharge on all amusement tickets and expansion of the state sales tax to include Internet access services and newspapers and magazines.
Most of the new revenue – $5.2 billion – would be used to offset the property tax reduction of 50 cents per $100 of value. The remainder would provide $1 billion in new money for schools and $750 million to equalize the 10 cent levy that school districts could collect for enrichment.
The payroll tax would generate about $2.4 billion a year, but the net gain to the state would be $600 million after the business franchise tax is abolished. The franchise tax, paid by about one in six businesses because of loopholes and exemptions, generates about $1.8 billion a year.
A constitutional amendment would be required for the state property tax and the legalization of video gambling. A constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate as well as voter approval.
Not explicitly mentioned there but noted by the Star Telegram is that this plan does not include the infamous stripper tax. That $1 surcharge on amusement tickets apparently includes movie tickets, though. The Chron has some more details on the new tax proposals:
The plan introduced by Rep. Talmadge Heflin, R-Houston, also eliminates the corporate franchise tax and imposes a new business tax based on payroll. Businesses would pay 1 percent of their payroll or $400 per employee, whichever is lower.Heflin's proposal also includes higher sales taxes on motor vehicle and boat sales, a $1 cigarette tax hike, and video lottery machines at racetracks. Among the services that would be taxed are home remodeling, barber and beauty, legal, accounting, architectural, public relations, testing labs, financial, real estate brokerage, veterinary, and automotive maintenance and repair.
[...]
Heflin, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said the proposal tried to reach a balance between business and consumer taxes.
"We tried to be sensitive to the business community when they said, `We don't mind paying our share if it's fair and uniform,' " Heflin said.
Businesses would pay some of the new sales taxes on services such as management consulting, research and development, and computer programming. But other new sales taxes, including on coin-operated laundry machines and car washes, will fall heavily on consumers.
The plan also includes a state property tax set at $1 per $100 assessed valuation to replace local school property taxes now capped at $1.50. However, Heflin said he is considering allowing the $1 tax to remain at the local level, a priority of school districts.
[...]
Craddick said he thinks the business community may accept the new taxes because of the reduction in property taxes and elimination of the franchise tax.
"The franchise tax is in decline anyway; more and more companies are converting out of it. You're having fewer and fewer businesses pay," said Craddick. "You need to look at a base where everybody pays on an equal basis."
The expansion of the sales tax is designed to tap into the growth in the service sector of the Texas economy.
"The idea of broadening it, that's where the growth in the economy is," said Craddick. "If you broaden it, you pick up that growth."
[...]
The House committee also heard about a separate plan for a 2.5 percent payroll tax offered by Rep. Dan Branch, R-Dallas. Branch said his plan would replace most of the franchise tax and would raise $5 billion, enough for a 33 percent property tax cut.
In addition, Rep. Fred Hill, R-Richardson, offered an amendment capping property appraisal growth at 5 percent.
There's a lot to digest here, and it's probably a fool's errand to pick out any aspect for detailed inspection. For one thing, as the Statesman notes, there's something in there for pretty much everyone to love and to hate.
Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, said almost any omnibus proposal, though it may have bits and pieces included to appeal to various lawmakers, will inevitably include over-my-dead-body elements for other legislators.Sen. Jane Nelson, R-Lewisville, said she is implacably opposed to any gambling elements. Tuesday, she was already talking about a filibuster and pondering medical procedures to allow her to spend hours on the Senate floor without going to the restroom.
If a video lottery bill reaches the Senate floor, Nelson said, "I plan to call a doctor down and be catheterized."
I believe that's my Too Much Information nominee for the session, but it does demonstrate the degree of opposition that certain aspects will face. Another part that will be fought tooth and nail is the proposed change of the property tax to be collected statewide, as noted in the Express News.
[S]chool groups have long opposed replacing local school taxes with a statewide levy, contending such a move would diminish the connection between taxpayers and local schools while giving legislators the green light to meddle more in how schools are managed.The Texas Association of School Administrators asked its members this week to contact House members and urge a "no" vote on the expected $1 per $100 valuation state property tax.
"It is advantageous to public schools to maintain a strong and direct connection between the local taxpayer and the public schools that benefit from their taxes," its Monday alert states.
Bill Ratliff, who proposed a statewide property tax as an education funding source while serving as an East Texas senator, newly lobbies for the Texas Association of School Boards.
Ratliff said today: "The fear all along was that if there is no significant local (school) tax, you know the old saying: 'He that has the gold makes the rules.' If all the money is coming from the state, the Legislature will not be able to resist calling all the shots. Schools will have less local control."
Ratliff said he has been told there are more than 50 pending amendments that amount to legislative efforts to dictate how school districts operate—ranging from directives affecting teacher contracts to one setting school board election dates.
To school districts, Ratliff said, "that's usurpation of local control—and they don't even have any extra money yet."
All along, I've been trying to figure out the political implications of this change or that, and I suspect the reason that reaction outside the House, especially from Rick Perry, has been so muted is that right now everyone else is making the same calculations. The House plan as it is right now would be a victory for Perry for property tax reductions (whether or not a separate appraisal cap is included, though to not have a cap would be a loss for him), but such broad expansions and increases in other taxes might be hard for him to swallow, and if the gambling proposals go down in flames, thus eliminating a potentially big source of extra revenue for the schools, then all bets are off (sorry about that).
I must say, I continue to remain puzzled about the whole property tax versus other tax issues. I'm a homeowner, and I know fully well that I pay a lot of property tax, but I also know that I get a decent sized piece of that back in April when I file my federal tax return. I just can't quite understand the appeal or logic of using an increase in a non-deductible tax to subsidize a cut in one you can write off. I can only presume that it's analogous to security by obscurity - everyone knows what their property taxes are, but no one has a clear handle on how much they shell out in sales tax, so cutting the former is always appealing even if the corresponding rise in the latter overcompensates for it in the long run.
Finally, whether slot machines are in our future or not, the House heard testimony yesterday that its current plan to license the machines is too generous to the licensees.
Jeff Hooke, an investment banker and consultant from Maryland, said a plan being considered by a House committee would charge racetracks only a "nominal fee" for licenses worth many millions of dollars."The governor and the Texas Legislature have a fiduciary obligation to get the taxpayers a fair deal," Hooke said in testimony prepared for the Senate Finance Committee.
[...]
Hooke, whose travel expenses to Texas were paid by the Baptist General Convention of Texas, which opposes gambling, said that making track owners bid against competitors for the licenses could generate almost $4 billion in licensing fees alone for the state.
Hooke said the state could auction the licenses for cash to the highest qualified bidders or auction licenses to bidders offering to take the lowest percentage of revenue from the machines.
He said the state of Illinois auctioned a casino license in suburban Chicago last month for $518 million. He said a video lottery terminal license is comparable in value to a casino license because slot machines provide 75 percent of casino profits.
Hooke said an Indian tribe in Michigan paid $265 million for a 40 percent interest in a Detroit casino license in 2000, indicating a total license value of $663 million.
As with yesterday's stuff, this evidence is not coming from a disinterested party, so take it with whatever level of skepticism you feel is warranted. As a matter of theory, though, I like the idea of making potential slot machine sites bid for their licenses. They know how much they think the licenses are worth to them, and it's in the state's interest to adjust their fees accordingly.
Recently, I had the opportunity to conduct an email interview with Rep. Martin Frost, who is running in a highly contested and closely watched race in the new 32nd Congressional District against Republican Rep. Pete Sessions. The interview is beneath the More link.
My fellow Texas blogger Byron LaMasters of the Burnt Orange Report had the same opportunity that I did to ask Rep. Frost a few questions, and his interview is now up. We tried not to overlap too much on our questions, but you may see a rerun or too in there, so don't be alarmed.
So, without further ado, here's my interview with Rep. Martin Frost:
CK: How do you plan to win in November in a district that was drawn to be unfriendly to Democrats?
MF: The people in the 32nd District are well informed, civic minded and trust their common sense. They want a Congressman who can work with a wide group of people with different perspectives and not someone who is blindly ideological and simply follows the directions of party leaders in Washington. I have a proven record of coalition building and fighting for issues and projects that are most important to North Texas. I'm an independent thinker who is not afraid to standup to either party's leaders in order to protect those I represent. I will run a strong grassroots campaign that will include neighborhoods and voting blocks that have not been included in other campaigns. I plan on organizing every precinct in the 32nd district. And, with the help of your readers and many others, I will raise the funds necessary to compete with the money DeLay and others will funnel to my opponent.
CK: As we all know, several of your colleagues (Charlie Stenholm, Nick Lampson, Chet Edwards, Max Sandlin, and to a lesser degree Lloyd Doggett) are in similar straits. Are you coordinating your campaigns in any way? How much help do you think you can give each other?
MF: The Texas Democratic Delegation has always taken great pride in working together and helping each other on issues important to our State. Texas Democrats share the same goals of creating new jobs and keeping our country safe and strong. We are all independent thinkers who don't run from a fight. When Tom DeLay forced the Texas Legislature to redraw Congressional District lines, he thought we would all simply walk away and let him decide who would represent Texas in Congress. We decided to stand and fight. The people, not Tom DeLay or his followers, will decide who serves them in Congress.
CK: Rep. Marcy Kaptur has been credited for getting a viable Democrat on the ballot for each of the Ohio Congressional seats which are currently held by Republicans. I know the districts are strongly tilted one way or another, but it's disappointing to see so many Republicans running against token or no opposition in Texas - CDs 10, 14, and 23 in particular come to mind. What must Democrats do to get more and better challengers on the ballot? What role can incumbent Democratic Conrgesspeople play in this?
MF: I'm a baseball fan, so I will answer this with a baseball analogy. We cannot afford to swing wildly at every pitch hoping for a homerun. We need to pick our pitches carefully, hit singles and doubles and run bases aggressively. Winning the key congressional and state house races will strike a major blow to Tom DeLay and the most extreme elements of the Republican Party and will set the stage for Texas fielding and electing statewide office holders in 2006 and 2010. Mainstream Democrats more accurately reflect the views of average Texans. We must win these highly competitive congressional and state house races to give voice to mainstream Democratic points of view.
CK: You were an early supporter of Gen. Wesley Clark for the Democratic nomination. What role would you like to see him play in the Presidential race from here?
MF: I would like to see General Clark and other national Democrats out on the stump as much as possible. General Clark is a strong reminder that Democrats not only believe in a strong national defense and successful military but have one of the our most distinguished military leaders within the ranks of our Party.
CK: How would you assess the Democrats' odds of recapturing the House? The party's overall strategy in 2002 was to emphasize issues like education and prescription drugs while attempting to take terrorism and the Bush tax cuts "off the table". Do you believe that was the right message? What kind of message should the Democrats have this time around?
MF: Instead of trying to predict the number of seats we'll have, Democrats should stay focused on our message of growing the economy, providing security for our people, and improving healthcare and education. I'll leave it to the odds-makers to try to predict the future. I do know that if average Americans really focus on what is at stake for our country, not only for this generation but for those to come, and show up at the polls and vote their convictions, Democrats will do just fine.
CK: You are touting your support for the No Child Left Behind law in your campaign. There seems now to be a lot of discontent with how this law is being executed, especially with the level of funding for it (see http://www.ndnblog.org/archives/000304.html, for example) and with the constraints it puts on local school boards. How do you address the critics of NCLB, especially the Democratic ones?
MF: The No Child Left Behind Law is a good first step, and the next step should be to provide appropriate funding. We should always keep evaluating and improving important laws like this to make sure they address the real needs in education.
CK: In defending the re-redistricting of 2003 and its intent to oust incumbents such as yourself, Republicans often bring up the 1991 redistricting effort, which is cited as a prime example of partisan gerrymandering, in this case to the Democrats' benefit. How do you respond to that?
MF: Their response is not only a feeble attempt to change the subject, but an inaccurate one. First, the map the Republicans redrew last year was not the 1991 map, but a fair and balanced plan drawn by the federal court. Second, the 1991 map was drawn immediately following the 1990 Census and did not require unprecedented changes in the legislative rules or arm-twisting from Washington. And third, while Democrats did draw a fairly bizarre looking map in 1991, it was not designed to eliminate Republicans. In fact, the 1991 map created three new minority districts while providing safe districts for every single Republican incumbent. Conversely, the GOP map just passed eliminated a minority district in North Texas and was drawn with the intent of eliminating as many as seven Democrats overall. GOP talk of the 1991 redistricting is simply a smokescreen.
CK: Tom DeLay has been in the news quite a bit lately, as allegations that he was involved in illegally funnelling corporate money to Republican candidates in 2002 are being investigated by a Travis County grand jury, among other things. Do you believe that these charges have weakened him at all? Do you plan on making DeLay an issue in your campaign? If so, how much of an issue should he be, in Texas and elsewhere?
MF: It is important to keep a spotlight on this issue, because the people have the right to know if their elected officials involved with questionable activities. I'm not running against Tom DeLay, but I have been an effective advocate for voters and have been willing to stand up to him when others ignored his extremism or actively avoided it. Tom DeLay fears independent thinkers and fighters. I am both.
CK: The Democratic Party has done quite a bit of outreach via the Internet recently, including weblogs - the DCCC, DSCC, DNC, and Texas Democratic Party all have them. Your campaign is now advertising on blogs. What has been your experience with blogs so far? Do you see them as being part of a viable long-term strategy? How much impact have blogs had on you and the rest of the Democratic Party leadership?
MF: Blogs are a great resource to connect into a group of people who care about the important issues of today. It is clear that a whole new dimension of political communication has evolved, and keeping up with and participating in it is absolutely necessary to stay in touch with public concerns.
The Dallas Morning News has a pet blog. No, really. And you know what? Looking at the content, which includes a plea for help in finding a lost dog, I think this is a pretty good idea for a newspaper-based blog. Done in a smart way, it'll be small bits of stuff, including some time-sensitive info, the sort of thing that isn't enough to flesh out a full column and/or is already out of date by publication time. Given a choice between that and this, I'll take the pet blog any day. Now if they could just add links to individual entries...
Be careful when ordering that pizza - it might help The Man hunt you down.
It's dinnertime, and you're hungry and tired, so you pick up the phone and order your favorite pizza. But you might have just landed yourself a lot more than pepperoni and cheese.If you owe fines or fees to the courts, that phone call may have provided the link the state needed to track you down and make you pay.
That's one of the strategies of firms such as a company being hired by the Missouri Office of State Courts Administrator to handle its fine and debt collections.
David Coplen, the state office's budget director, said he discovered that pizza delivery lists are one of the best sources such companies use to locate people.
"There are literally millions of dollars of uncollected fines, fees and court costs out there," Coplen said.
How much?
A sampling in January of just three of Missouri's 114 counties found about $2 million owed to courts by people whose Social Security numbers were known, Coplen said. That finding suggests courts statewide could reap significant revenue once Dallas-based ACS Inc. gets to work this month pursuing people using phone numbers and addresses.
Databases compiled by private companies and government agencies are a key tool for firms such as ACS, Coplen said, and "one of the databases they find to be most helpful are pizza delivery databases."
"When you call to order a pizza, you usually give them your correct name, your correct address and your correct phone number," he said.
Naturally, no pizza chain would confirm that they share info with firms like this. I haven't ordered from Domino's since I was in grad school; this is just one more reason to feel good about that.
I must say that I don't see this as full-scale creeping-Big-Brother evil. For one thing, it strikes me as being peanuts compared to what credit reporting companies already know and tell about all of us. For another, I'm a big believer in cities collecting the fines and fees they're due. It's not going to be enough to balance any budgets, but there's no good reason to leave that kind of money on the table, especially now. I have my qualms about turning this sort of thing over to a private contractor, but not enough of them in this case to work myself into a fevered rant. I do think there ought to be some strict rules which say what these guys can and can't do, and what kind of information is and is not available to them, and for the sake of uniformity those rules ought to be federal in nature. I fully expect it'll take a couple of made-for-Dateline type outrages before anyone takes up that cause, however.
So anyway, file this under FYI, and use it as an impetus to try out a local non-chain pizza place next time. The food will be better anyway. Via Gary Farber. Oh, and Gary, the phrase you're looking for is No Anchovies, Please.
Last week, I received an email from Jesse Lee of the DCCC asking if I'd like to participate in a blog exchange program, where I posted something there and he posted something here. I agreed, and this morning my guest appearance was published on the Stakeholder site. I also received Jesse's reciprocal post in my inbox, which is beneath the More link. It's a good look at how the national Congressional races have shaped up so far and where they'll be going from here, so please take a minute and check it out.
Look for more of these blog exchanges between the Stakeholder and progressive bloggers in the future. I think it's a great way for the DCCC and national Democrats to interact with their base, and I hope to see some good conversations get started. This is the kind of thing I like to see groups like that do with blogs, for it's exactly the sort of thing that blogs are well-suited to do. Kudos to the DCCC for thinking outside the box, and here's Jesse's post.
Massive and genuine thanks to Charles for diving into this blog tour experiment with us. You can check out his post on our blog re: the Texas circus here.
Charles was curious to know exactly what we do behind the scenes over here, and we’re happy to oblige.
It’s probably best to start with a case study. On February 17th there was a special election in Kentucky that was fairly well covered in the blogosphere, where we helped get Democrat Ben Chandler elected in a district that went 54-42 for Bush in 2000.
During this off time before June or so, our focus is largely on taking these special elections, so it was a pretty serious battle down there between ourselves and our dark-side counterpart, the NRCC. When the race began, the GOP thought their best bet was to portray the race as a referendum on Bush. We ran down the entire timeline in this post soon after the election, but on 12/16/03 Kerr announced proudly, “she wants to bring in national GOP leaders, including President Bush, to campaign with her.” A week later, the Lexington Herald-Leader ran a story entitled “The Third Name in 6th District Race: Bush,” and Kerr posted the story on her website where it remained throughout the campaign. Then she went too far. She ran an ad that closed with the words, “They’re cut from the same cloth. While others attack the president's economic program and his fight to protect our national security, Alice Forgy Kerr stands with President Bush.” That ad did virtually nothing for her positive ratings, but her negatives shot up, and whereas we had tread softly on the question before (it was “Bush Country” after all), we pounced on her after that. Every press release and PR campaign we dished out called her “Rubberstamp” Kerr, the reputation stuck, and she was all but cooked.
What finally brought us over the top was the targeting of anti-Bush base voters with television commercials, and a series of nine poignant anti-Bush print pieces that were mailed or hand-delivered to voters’ homes. On the weekend before Election Day, we organized a massive GOTV program, with more than 550 volunteers dropping literature, knocking on doors, making phone calls, and staffing visibility points. The end result was that a primary projected to have as little as 10% turnout instead brought 35%, along with a 12-point landslide Democratic win deep in a state the GOP had attempted to claim for their own.
The reason this “case study” is important is because this year is a unique one for us, and that race was a kind of trial run. The country is largely polarized, with the Republicans having created an alternate universe of right-wing propaganda to insulate their supporters from the truth about their corruption, portraying critics as “unpatriotic,” etc. Take this Washington Post account of a typical resident from Tom DeLay’s home district:
“Time for the news. Some people get their information from the TV networks or the paper. Stein starts with the Drudge Report Web site, where he scans the headlines and clicks on one that says, ‘Rallying Cry For Dems: Vote Bush Out of Rove's Office.’ ‘This is the kind of stuff that pisses me off,’ he says. ‘They don't give Bush the respect he deserves. Not only because he's president, but because he's a helluva good man.’ Next he goes to a Web site called WorldNetDaily.com. He clicks on an article that says, ‘Poll: Bush's Approval Sinking,’ but dismisses it as untrustworthy when he sees the poll was done by CBS. ‘Of course I have a suspicion of CBS,’ he says. ‘Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw -- they don't have any credibility with me.’”
The GOP has leveled an unflinching campaign to marginalize anybody who even mentions their shortcomings, and clearly this has included a largely successful attempt to discredit legitimate news sources and replace them with their regurgitators. In truth, it has been an assault on the free press itself, attempting to replace it with a well-financed GOP propaganda machine. Being that the free press is really the only guardian against manipulation of the public, this is an extremely dangerous power grab.
It also forces us to put more energy into energizing the base, even if we would rather use our resources addressing the nation as a whole. If the highest-rated cable news network will not allow our message through without distortion, our efforts become far less fruitful. Unfortunately for the GOP, however, our base is ready to rock, and when they had a chance to send a message in Kentucky, they seized it.
This year every Republican Member of Congress has made himself a square target, as virtually none can claim to have been anything but a rubberstamp for Bush and DeLay. They did so thinking the President’s approval ratings would keep them safe, but with poll numbers falling, and over a dozen investigations chomping at Bush and DeLay’s feet, their decision to abandon their responsibilities may come back to haunt them- in fact, we will make sure it does. The key to our success is to be nimble, able to allocate resources quickly and in rapid response as strategic “linebackers” for every one of our candidates, and holding their opponents accountable for their records and campaigns. First off, though, is taking South Dakota’s At Large for Stephanie Herseth.
Our ultimate goal will be to take the 12 seats necessary to put Tom DeLay back in the minority (assuming he’s not in jail), and let Nancy Pelosi take the helms as the first female Speaker in history. One of them will set the legislative agenda for the 109th Congress - is there any fight more worth fighting this year?
Slot machines at horse racing tracks are all the rage today.
Seven Texas racetracks, including Grand Prairie's Lone Star Park, could function as around-the-clock gambling casinos open 365 days a year under a multibillion-dollar proposal presented to a legislative panel Monday.State Rep. Jim Pitts, a Waxahachie Republican, made the presentation to be included in a far-reaching package of legislation that would overhaul the way Texas pays for public education.
Under Pitts' proposal to the House Select Committee on Public School Finance, Lone Star Park and six other racing facilities, along with three Indian reservations, could operate as many as 40,000 video slot machine-style lottery terminals where patrons play for cash prizes.
Pitts and lawyers representing the Texas Lottery Commission and the state attorney general's office said the machines would generate more than $2.6 billion a year, with the state receiving $1.57 billion.
Officials project that Lone Star Park, the 8-year-old racetrack just north of Interstate 30 between Dallas and Arlington, would produce $1.7 billion in annual revenues and pump $701.7 million into the state treasury. That's more than Las Vegas hotels and casinos generate for the state of Nevada, the select committee was told.
"That blows my mind," said state Rep. Kent Grusendorf, R-Arlington, the panel's chairman.
I do not believe these figures. I believe they are pumped up, overly optimistic, and based on flawed assumptions. I believe this is a new version of the bill of goods we were sold on the lottery a decade ago. I need to see some numbers from a truly disinterested party before I'm willing to accept any data as accurate.
The rate of return was based on the provision in the measure that calls for the state to collect 60 cents on every dollar earned by each video slot machine. But the former chairman of Lone Star Park warned that the state's desire to maximize its revenue could sabotage the venture before it is launched."You won't be able to develop the facility if the tax rate and all costs on the track are as high as that," said Robert Kaminski, who is now a consultant to Lone Star Park's parent company, Magna Entertainment Corp. "You can't tax it so high on the front end that it reduces the incentive to put the investment in to generate the revenue that the state wants."
There's your first danger sign. We can talk all we want about how slot machine money will be earmarked for education, but once they're a reality there will be a ton of pressure to look out for the interests of the race tracks who own them. I guarantee you that when that happens, those interests will be put ahead of everyone else's. If we want more gambling in Texas, we should be honest about it and drop the fig leaf that it's all about generating money for schools.
I already know the real answer to this question, but is anyone else wondering why there's so much official concern for the well being of race track owners?
During testimony about video lottery terminals, Texas Agriculture Commissioner Susan Combs told the committee that having the terminals would help the state's equine industry. She said money the racetracks would get from the terminals would help fatten their purses, luring owners with better breeds of racehorses to the state."If you go to race, and the maximum prize you can get is $5,000 versus $500,000, where are you going to go?" Combs said after her testimony. "You're going to go to the $500,000."
The level of concern for the historically oppressed horse racing industry is touching, isn't it? But why stop there? Why not bring the same joy to other industries? How about slot machines at the gas pump? If you go to fill up your tank and the maximum you can get is a full tank of gas versus a full tank plus a shot at $500,000, where are you going to go?
By the way, why is the Ag Commissioner testifying on this subject?
"I look at it from the aspect of rural economic development," Combs testified before a House committee as legislators entered their second week of a special session.
Oooo-kay, let's move on. Let's go back to the numbers for a second.
Seven horse and dog tracks in Texas, including Lone Star Park at Grand Prairie, would average 4,000 video slot machines. The rest would be on three American Indian reservations.To put the figures into context: Caesar's Palace on the Las Vegas strip has about 2,000 slot machines. The state of Louisiana has just over 14,000 video slot machines. West Virginia has 10,500.
Nevada has about 210,000 slot and gaming machines, according to the 2003 annual report of International Game Technology, the country's largest manufacturer of slots and gaming devices.
That's a lot of slot machines, which would make for a significant expansion of gambling in Texas, right?
Some state leaders, including Gov. Rick Perry, have said the slot machines wouldn't amount to expansion of gambling in the state because they would be confined to locations where other forms of gambling already are allowed."The proposal allows the Texas Lottery Commission to operate a video lottery system consistent with the public policy that strictly limits the expansion of gambling in Texas," Mr. Pitts said. "This amendment will continue to control the proliferation of gambling by only allowing ... [gaming] at horse and dog tracks in Texas and certain Indian lands."
Yeah, that's what I thought.
This all may be an academic exercise, as there exists some strong opposition in the Lege to expanded gambling.
Republican House members Linda Harper-Brown of Irving and Jodie Laubenberg of Parker say they can't support the use gambling to finance education.Ms. Laubenberg heard about the Pitts proposal from a reporter late Monday.
"Is he serious?" she said. "My position hasn't changed."
Ms. Laubenberg said her opposition to the slot machine idea is "nothing against the governor."
"But this is just one component of the plan I cannot support," she said.
Ms. Harper-Brown said lawmakers who oppose gambling will prevail.
"This does nothing to damage our resolve," she said of the Pitts proposal.
And not just in the House, either.
Sen. Steve Ogden, R-Bryan, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said senators waiting for House action will consider slot machines, adding, "My preference is to not do it.""I've never been a supporter of state-sanctioned gambling," he said.
It's important to remember, though, that the real agenda here isn't gambling, and for that matter isn't really school finance reform. It's an antitax agenda, and the potential consequences aren't getting nearly the public hearing that slot machines are.
[Rep. Kent] Grusendorf, referring to moves to change Perry's proposed restrictions on local governments' ability to raise taxes, said, "It'd be nice to get one hot-button issue off the table."Advocates for cities and counties, who question the fairness of lawmakers directing local tax decisions, said they are reviewing language reached this weekend by Perry, House Speaker Tom Craddick, R-Midland, and Rep. Fred Hill, R-Richardson. Perry's office said the governor remains committed to his original proposals "at this time."
"We've come as close as we can possibly get to agreement on it," Hill said.
Under the changes, voters would be asked to cap at 5 percent how much a single-family home's valuation can annually increase for tax purposes. Perry has proposed a 3 percent cap.
Perry has sought to require local governments to seek voter approval of tax increases that outpace population growth and inflation. The new language would permit voters to petition for a tax rollback if local governments increase taxes 5 percent or more, not counting tax breaks for economic development.
Currently, voters can petition for a rollback if a local agency raises taxes more than 8 percent above the rate needed to raise what it spends on day-to-day operations. School boards are required to hold ratification elections rather than awaiting a petition.
Voters would be asked to approve or reject such tax increases once 5 percent of voters who cast ballots in the previous presidential election sign a rollback petition — easier than the existing requirement that 10 percent of registered voters in a local jurisdiction sign a petition.
Hill said the proposal also would include a proposed constitutional amendment barring future Legislatures from handing down "unfunded mandates" to local agencies, with the attorney general advising whether laws breach the ban.
This is the ball that you really need to keep your eye on. Everything else is just bells and whistles.
UPDATE: Missed this op-ed by Perry himself.
My plan may not be perfect, but it is the best plan I know of to achieve four basic goals: improving funding for education, lowering the school property tax burden, replacing Robin Hood with a more equitable system and sustaining and enhancing the job climate in Texas.Those who criticize my plan have an obligation to do more than criticize. They need to offer Texans their constructive solutions, too. Let's have a positive debate about ensuring long-term prosperity and opportunity for the people of Texas. If lawmakers and other leaders stay focused on tax relief and better schools, we will succeed. And Texas will be better off for it.
I mostly agree with that last paragraph, though of course I'm way more interested in staying focused on better schools and a more workable tax system. This session is supposed to be about the schools, right? As to "tax relief", I forget where I saw this, but someone recently observed that it's funny how we're a low-tax state when we're trying to lure businesses here, but we're in dire need of tax relief when the Lege is in session. Link via Hope.
And Carlos Guerra reminds us that we've seen this trick before.
This is hardly a new idea. Texas' parimutuel entrepreneurs have pushed for video lottery terminals for years, and not only to benefit Texas schoolchildren.It began in 1987, after parimutuel tracks won voter approval following a multimillion-dollar ad campaign promised that the "sport of kings" would pump billions into the state treasury, create thousands of new jobs and help Texas dog and horse breeders.
In 1993, after the rosy predictions failed to materialize and several new tracks resorted to bankruptcy protection, the Legislature authorized simulcast betting — wagers on out-of-state races — to help the struggling ventures survive.
In 1995, $521 million was bet on Texas tracks, with more than half — $262 million — on live races and the remainder on simulcast contests. But by 2003, these tracks' wagers had grown only $36 million to $557 million, and bets on live races had dropped to $114 million.
And during that time, all the tracks' state taxes on bets dropped from $7,386,299 to $4,676,860.
The tracks' total attendance between 1995 and 2003 dropped from 3,534,208 to 2,862,501.
Now, remind me again: Whom exactly are these slots going to help?
I feel even more certain about my initial skepticism. Via Lasso.
Rep. Ciro Rodriguez has amended his lawsuit against Henry Cuellar to allege that many people who voted in the runoff do not actually live in CD28.
The San Antonio Express-News visited some of the residences in question Monday based on information provided by Rodriguez's attorney, Buck Wood.[...]
Two other homes listed in the lawsuit — one littered with trash and with the front door standing off its hinges and another with a posted city application for remodeling — appeared vacant when visited by a reporter. Records show 11 people living and voting at those addresses.
At a fourth address, a resident said he did not know six people who were registered there and voted in the primary.
Texas voter eligibility requirements mandate that a person be a resident of their county at least 30 days before the election.
Rodriguez officials, who have had investigators combing Webb County since late March, said they have reason to believe the irregularities extend beyond the 500 votes they say were cast with questionable voter registration addresses.
"I believe that if we're given a decent amount of time to investigate this case, we're going to find more and more and more of this," Wood said. "And we haven't even gotten to Zapata yet."
The Cuellar camp, meanwhile, said the allegations are more of the same misrepresentations that Rodriguez has engaged in since he lost the election, Connolly said.
"Do we think he's uncovered some kind of grave impropriety in Webb County? No," Connolly said. "We don't think that's the case at all, but until we have the chance to review the facts specifically, we can't really address it."
Connolly added that Cuellar's attorneys were anticipating Wood's strategy and plan to file a timely response by Wednesday.
Webb County Elections Administrator Oscar Villarreal said he was not aware of the Rodriguez findings.
"As far as people voting without living at a particular address, I have never heard of us having that kind of problem," Villarreal said.
That's just bizarre. What I'm wondering is how these alleged phantoms came to be registered in the first place. I look forward to hearing Cuellar's response to these charges.
UPDATE: The final amended form of the lawsuit just says "in excess of 100" unqualified voters cast ballots in Webb County.
Clinging to a court decision as his last hope, Rodriguez has had investigators in the Webb County area since late March.Campaign officials said that investigation has turned up more than 500 questionable votes, but the lawsuit alleges "in excess of 100" such irregularities occurred to ensure legal accuracy.
"We don't want to say 250, for example, if it's 249," Puder said.
But Cuellar's attorneys immediately seized on the 100-voter figure Tuesday, saying it is a far cry from the 500 questionable addresses the Rodriguez campaign has said they are looking into.
"This is an act of desperation," Cuellar attorney Steve Bickerstaff said. "The original tack was to challenge the recounts (in Webb and Zapata counties), but now it's an act of targeting individuals within a single county who they think may have voted when they weren't eligible to."
Bickerstaff added that the suit makes no allegations of fraud or official misconduct.
A Cuellar response will be filed with the court today in advance of a pretrial hearing Thursday in Austin.
Cuellar's attorneys had asked that the case be dismissed based on insufficient evidence. Bickerstaff said that request stands.
"I've seen nothing in this (newly filed) petition to change that," he said.
We'll know soon enough.
Apparently, Tom DeLay supports repealing the 17th Amendment, which allowed for the direct election of Senators.
During the House debate last week over reconstituting Congress in the event of a terrorist attack or natural catastrophe, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) seemed to come out against the 17th Amendment, which authorized the direct election of U.S. Senators.“I would argue that it’s had a negative effect on this country,” said the Texas Republican, who has never been a huge fan of the way the Senate operates anyway.
But DeLay isn’t really against the 17th Amendment, is he? He doesn’t want to return to the pre-1913 era, when Senators were elected by state legislatures, sometimes under some very questionable circumstances?
It turns out that he does. DeLay “shares a similar position with [former Nixon White House counsel] John Dean, [Sen.] Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) and several Founders who have monuments around this city,” said Jonathan Grella, DeLay’s press secretary, naming other prominent Americans who support the Constitution’s original method for choosing Senators.
I'm more puzzled by this than anything. While the Senate itself is non-democratic for any number of reasons, how is the election of individual Senators anything but? And how would indirect election via state legislatures help? As this New Yorker article on redistricting notes, the Senate is probably a truer representation of the will of individual states than the House is.
Senate races, which are not subject to redistricting, are decided by actual voters, who do indeed change their minds with some regularity. Control of the Senate has shifted five times since the nineteen-eighties. The House, by contrast, has changed hands just once in the same period, in the Republican takeover of 1994. In 2002, only one out of twelve House elections was decided by ten or fewer percentage points, while half of the governors’ and Senate races were that close. In 2002, only four House challengers defeated incumbents in the general election—a record low in the modern era. In a real sense, the voters no longer select the members of the House of Representatives; the state legislators who design the districts do.
On the other hand, I suppose that answers the question about why it's appealing to Tom DeLay.
But don’t expect DeLay to be seeking to overturn the 17th Amendment anytime soon.“If you can’t redistrict the Senate, this is the next best thing,” Grella joked.
Jokes aside, I'm curious. Does anyone reading this think the 17th Amendment was a bad idea and should be repealed? If so, why? I must say that this is one of those things that had never really occurred to me.
Thanks to AJ Garcia for the link.
From the WaPo's Reliable Source column:
A Different Kind of Joint Session• Last week the Capitol Police busted a young intern working for Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) for toting a baggie of pot and a bong into the Cannon House Office Building
The bit goes on to talk about one of the seven (!) people in America who have legal access to medical marijuana (no, I didn't know there were any, either), but the reason I blogged this was simply to say that there's something just so right about an aide to a former Libertarian Party Presidential candidate getting busted for bringing pot (not to mention a bong) to work. I'll bet when he goes for a smoke break, people go with him. Via Rob.
Here's an interesting perspective on why Governor Perry proposed the school finance reform solution that he did.
The 134 school districts that lose money under the Robin Hood school finance system serve 12 percent of the state's students. Voters in these districts cast 17.5 percent of the 2002 GOP primary vote, according to Texas Legislative Council records. But Campaigns for People found 27 percent of all campaign contributions made in 2002 came from people living in these districts.Perry's staff crafted a school finance plan designed to appeal to Houston Republicans who want to cap property tax appraisals and to Dallas Republicans who want to eliminate the share-the-wealth Robin Hood school finance system. To pay for it, they avoided across-the-board tax increases, instead focusing on "sin" taxes and expansion of gambling to video lottery terminals at horse racing tracks.
Perry's aides then did polling to make certain his plan would be popularly received even if not legislatively viable.
"I'm sure he will say it's the best plan available, but a lot of people have speculated that it's because he's worried about somebody running against him," said Mike Boone, a prominent Republican lawyer from Dallas who is pushing for a broad business tax to replace the current school finance system. "He can claim he had a plan and if it failed, it failed, but at least he took action."
I'm not sure what to make of that. I don't expect an actual Perry person to confirm that this was their plan, but I'd like to see a quote from more than one person, especially someone who already disagrees with Perry's plan, before I accept this as conventional wisdom.
I'm also not sure how good a strategy this would be even if it's true. 17.5% is a decent sized bloc, but it's nowhere near a majority. Surely Perry sees his base as being a bit larger than the Houston and Dallas suburbs, right? I know primaries are decided by a small slice of the electorate, but betting one's reelection on one-sixth of those who voted last time seems awfully risky to me.
Finally, even if he is just hoping to get credit for trying, what happens if Craddick and Dewhurst team up to pass sweeping legislation that caps property taxes but also expands and increases the sales tax while overhauling the useless corporate franchise tax? Does Perry have the sand to veto such a bill and piss most people off, or does he turn his back on that 17.5%, who might reasonably have expected him to push his poll-tested plan a bit harder? Actually, if this did happen he'd probably point at the property tax cap and declare victory anyway. Whether he'd be allowed to claim credit or not is another question.
I've been rather amused lately watching all of the dust that's been kicked up over John Kerry's Catholicism and the attempts by some people to reduce the entirity of Catholic dogma to a litmus test on abortion. Most amusing has been the reaction to this attempt by Rep. Nick Lampson to put together a Catholic Voting Scorecard, which rates legislators on a broad range of issues, including "housing vouchers, welfare and raising the minimum wage". Apparently, some Republicans are upset that he'd dare to politicize a matter of faith. Who'da thunk it?
I think it's a good thing that we're having this discussion, because it's giving Catholics a chance to point out that there are other issues besides abortion. Of course, the deeper we get into this, the more clear it becomes that neither party hews all that closely to Catholic doctrine - an awful lot of Democrats support the death penalty and voted for the Iraq invasion, as we all know. Maybe that whole separation of church and state thing, which Steve Smith (permalinks bloggered - look for the April 23 entry) reminds us the Vatican reluctantly approved in 1960, isn't such a bad idea after all.
But if we really want to make the debate about whether or not John Kerry can be a good Catholic and vote pro-choice, then at the very least I think we ought to expand the conversation just a little, and ask those who are bearding Kerry if they really oughtn't be going after any Catholic politician who doesn't toe the line on birth control.
In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, "Human Life"), which reemphasized the Church’s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use artificial birth control—contraception—to prevent new human beings from coming into existence.Artificial birth control is "any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other methods of artificial contraception.
[...]
Contraception is wrong because it’s a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as "natural law." The natural law purpose of sex is procreation. The pleasure that sexual intercourse provides is an additional blessing from God, intended to offer the possibility of new life while strengthening the bond of intimacy, respect, and love between husband and wife. The loving environment this bond creates is the perfect setting for nurturing children.
But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation. God’s gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural end—procreation.
[...]
Ignoring the mountain of evidence, some maintain that the Church considers the use of contraception a matter for each married couple to decide according to their "individual conscience." Yet, nothing could be further from the truth. The Church has always maintained the historic Christian teaching that deliberate acts of artificial birth control are always gravely sinful, which means that it is mortally sinful if done with full knowledge and deliberate consent (CCC 1857). This teaching is definitive and irreformable. It cannot be changed and has been proclaimed by the Church infallibly.
There is no way to deny the fact that the Church’s ordinary magisterium (cf. Vatican II’s document Lumen Gentium 25) has always and everywhere condemned artificial contraception. The matter has already been infallibly decided. The so-called "individual conscience" argument amounts to "individual disobedience."
(Emphasis mine.) Got all that? My best wishes to you if you want to make that a key plank in your platform. And if you choose to ignore this while focusing on abortion, I'd like to know why. Your mandate seems pretty clear to me.
UPDATE: More from Slacktivist.
Meet Steve Brozak, who may have a major role to play in the Democrats' efforts to win back the House in November.
WESTFIELD, N.J. -- On a Friday afternoon last April, a couple of weeks after he returned from Iraq, Marine Lt. Col. Steve Brozak walked into the town hall here and changed his voter registration from Republican to Democrat.That put Mr. Brozak in the middle of Democratic efforts to chip away at Republicans' political strength on national-security matters. With Vietnam veteran John Kerry at the top of the ticket and unease growing over the Bush administration's handling of Iraq and terrorism, Democrats are hoping to tap a new constituency: members of the military and veterans, who vote overwhelmingly Republican.
It's a mission being embraced by the 42-year-old Mr. Brozak, now running for Congress in a well-to-do swath of suburban New Jersey. A social moderate and fiscal conservative, he's emerging as the Democrats' dream challenger to an entrenched Republican. The son of immigrants, he's an investment banker specializing in biotechnology companies and a Marine who has served three years on active duty and 18 years in the Reserve, including brief volunteer deployments to Haiti, Bosnia, Kuwait and Iraq.
[...]
Mr. Brozak, who plans to retire from the Reserve May 1, began turning against the Republican Party during the South Carolina primary in 2000, when a Bush ally accused Sen. John McCain of neglecting his fellow Vietnam veterans. Mr. Brozak grew even angrier in 2002, when Republican Saxby Chambliss, aided by President Bush, defeated Democratic Georgia Sen. Max Cleland in a bitter campaign. Ads for Mr. Chambliss implicitly questioned the patriotism of Mr. Cleland -- who lost three limbs serving in Vietnam.
When Mr. Brozak decided to change his party affiliation, the only person he told ahead of time was his father, an immigrant who had piloted a fighter plane in a brief uprising against the Nazi occupation of his native Yugoslavia and wound up in a slave-labor camp. Later, he found himself discussing the war with a Marine buddy, who told Mr. Brozak he sounded as if he were campaigning. The idea stuck, Mr. Brozak says, and he decided to discuss running with New Jersey and national Democrats.
These days, Mr. Brozak is especially angry about the administration's treatment of National Guard and Reserve troops, the traditional weekend warriors who now find themselves deployed for years. Within the next few months, 70% of the 7,000 members of the New Jersey Army National Guard will be on active duty in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Sinai Peninsula or elsewhere -- a higher share than at any time since World War II.
In the Marines, Mr. Brozak served as an infantry commander and public-affairs officer. His last post was as liaison with companies whose employees had been called up for duty. When he went to Kuwait and Iraq a year ago, he accompanied a survey team assessing how deployment affects citizen-soldiers. The survey found a third of the troops expected to pay a heavy price: lost jobs, lost businesses, lost promotions, lost income.
"As bad as it is for people in this economy, it's twice as bad for the guard, reserve" and active-duty military, Mr. Brozak told a political action committee of service-academy graduates at a meeting last month aboard the aircraft carrier USS Intrepid. Despite legal safeguards, many of them aren't guaranteed a job when they return, he says. He believes the regular military should be beefed up to take the stress off the part-timers.
His campaign website is here, for those of you who want to check him out in more detail. Via Easter Lemming.
Kevin Drum points to this WaPo piece by William Adler, in which he shows how he fingered a UT prof for signing his name to an op-ed which had been entirely written by someone else, and as it embarrassingly turned out for the prof, printed under a different prof's name in a different newspaper in the past. A longer and more detailed version of this story is here, which Julia had noted.
It's pretty good reading, and I agree with Adler's suggested questions for op-ed page editors: 1) Did you write this piece? 2) Are you a consultant, paid or not, to an organization or interest group with a vested interest in your column? I find it disturbing that this kind of punditry fraud has been going on for so long, but at least now with Google, Lexis/Nexis, and watchdogs like Adler, it ought to be harder to go undetected. Really, though, it'd be much better if op-ed page editors themselves Googled authors and the occasional catchphrase before running a piece in their own paper. In addition to this sort of fraud, they'd also catch writers with intentionally misleading bylines.
What I don't understand is why UT is not planning any disciplinary action against Sheldon Landsberger, its errant professor.
The college is not planning any disciplinary action against Landsberger, said Dean Ben Streetman.[...]
The University considers plagiarism "any use of the content or style of another's intellectual product without proper attribution" when regarding student work. Disciplinary action for "scholastic dishonesty" ranges from failing the specific class to permanent expulsion and is administered by Student Judicial Services.
[...]
Streetman, who has been dean for eight years, said he has never dealt with a similar experience.
"We believe that when faculty write articles, that it should be original," he said.
I suppose, though it's not clear to me here, that Streetman is saying that the University doesn't have a rule that covers this case. If so, then Landsberger would seem to be free on a technicality. I'd feel better about that if UT, and any other school which doesn't explicitly cover such occurrances, would address it for the future.
The Chron kinda teased me with the headline of this front page story: "Possible violations of law found in state GOP money trail". The story, which says that a review of "more than 10,000 pages of state and federal campaign finance reports" found possible violations of state law in how corporate money was spent, never really gets into any details and thus doesn't move the ball forward. The only real new information I got out of this was the total dollar amounts of corporate and union cash - the two types of donations that are singled out under Texas law - by each party. In 2002, that was $5.7 million by the GOP and about $560,000 by the Democrats.
I suppose it's useful enough as an overview, and perhaps its timing is a sign that the reconvened grand jury is getting ready to make some noise. And it did have this little tidbit, which I've seen before but which bears repeating in light of recent revelations:
[Wayne Hamilton, former GOP executive director and now a special adviser to the party] said the Republican increase in corporate funds was the result of aggressive fund raising.That fund raising included $400,000 from two national nursing home chains that wanted caps on pain-and-suffering awards in neglect and abuse cases. The Legislature in 2003 passed such caps.
Not that there was any quid pro quo, of course. As we well know, it is wrong and unethical to even suggest such a thing.
So there's been another faculty report at Rice which is critical of athletics there. Wasn't the first one, won't be the last. Typically, this one makes no recommendations except for "more study".
I'm a fan of Rice sports, but I'm not an alumnus. I think Rice gets more value out of its programs than any McKinsey study can quantify, but I also think that it will be increasingly difficult for a school like Rice to be a meaningful competitor in college sports because the big money schools don't really care if Rice plays or not. We're not a big draw, we don't have a big fan base, we don't have desireable facilities outside of baseball.
Whatever, though, this is much ado about nothing. I don't see there being enough support among administration, trustees, alumni and fans to make any changes - quite the contrary, in fact. That's fine by me. As befits a true Rice fan of any sport, I'm ready for next year. Go Rice!
We're now one week into the special session on school finance reform, and the one thing we know for sure is that the Perry Plan is toast. Neither Tom Craddick nor David Dewhurst has supported it, there's already an alternate plan in the works, and of course on the sidelines we have Carole "No Strippers!" Strayhorn throwing spitballs.
It's been my belief that if the sessions implode with no major action taken, Perry will suffer some blowback. However, as this AP story notes, he may come out all right anyway.
No matter which school finance plan emerges, Perry appears to be hoping Texas voters in 2006 give him credit for pushing lawmakers to address the vexing subject.Even George W. Bush wasn't successful when he tried to pass a school funding plan as governor in 1997, Perry has pointed out.
Republican political consultant Ray Sullivan, who has close ties to Perry and Bush, said polls showed then that voters supported Bush's efforts.
"School finance is a monstrously difficult issue for any governor or Legislature to address," Sullivan said. "Texas governors have not always been successful at dealing with school finance in the past. But they generally get credit for trying."
There is something to that, and for sure even an incremental change which includes some kind of property tax cap will be seen as a victory for Perry. I still see this spinning out of his control, and other players in the 2006 game claiming more credit than him. We'll see.
I will say this: Strayhorn is on the verge of turning into a self-parody. (Not that she really had all that far to go, in my opinion - all that "tough grandma" baloney always made me gag.) Sooner or later, people are going to say to her "OK, smartypants, what's your plan?" Closing down strip clubs isn't going to sound any more like a bright idea than taxing them is. Look at this editorial from the Lufkin Daily News (via Byron). If you've lost Lufkin, you've lost the Common Person Common Sense mantle.
Continuing its great job of political coverage from the redistricting sessions, the Austin Chronicle has a fine overview of this session and what may happen. Check it out.
This would be funny if it weren't so utterly pathetic.
House lawmakers sent a stern message to insurance companies Thursday: Medical malpractice lawsuit reforms passed last year were meant to help doctors -- not boost profits.Republicans and Democrats who supported the legislation suggested that lawmakers might consider mandatory rate rollbacks if doctors don't get significant rate relief soon.
Lawmakers nearly approved a rate rollback last year but stopped short when insurance companies promised reductions.
"Some of us put ourselves way out on the line for our doctors," said Rep. Joe Nixon, R-Houston, author of the bill and the constitutional amendment that allows a cap on jury awards and limits insurance companies' liability.
"Profits for (the companies) is not what we intended."
Imagine that. The Lege passed a law that reduced the costs of a bunch of profit-maximizing firms, and they had the gall to go and use it to maximize their profits. Maybe next time, the legislation ought to match the intent, you know?
This is even more precious.
The House Civil Practices Committee on Thursday heard updates on the fallout from a sweeping lawsuit reform bill enacted after a bitter legislative struggle last year.[...]
At the hearing, [State Rep. Patrick] Rose sharply challenged [State Insurnce Commissioner Jose] Montemayor over a letter the commissioner wrote to the committee in March 2003, when emotions over the reforms were approaching white heat.
Montemayor wrote that if the reforms were enacted, "this would translate to a 17 percent to 19 percent reduction in rates."
Montemayor's projections were cited by many lawmakers and reform supporters, especially during the campaign that persuaded voters to approve damage-award caps.
But Montemayor testified Thursday that his letter was not meant to promise that rates actually would go down by that or any amount. The numbers were theoretical and did not allow for a surge in malpractice lawsuits filed before the new laws took effect, Montemayor said.
Yo, Jose: The "bad intelligence" defense works best if you aren't the actual source of that intelligence. You said rates would go down. They haven't. Maybe they will eventually - and "eventually", I remind you, is not what you promised - and maybe if they do this ridiculous piece of legislation will be partly responsible for it. But the bottom line is, you were wrong. Now admit it.
And the reason you were wrong is because the case for tort "reform" is a myth. Instead of getting tough on the small minority of doctors who are responsible for a disproportionate amount of med-mal cases, instead of working to make the free market of doctors more efficient, Republicans pushed for a new artificial hindrance on that free market, and are shocked to find that it has had an unintended (albeit not unforeseeable) consequence. Best of all, to compensate for that unintended consequence, they're talking about enacting price controls. The irony is just killing me.
Kriston Capps is made of sterner stuff than I am, let me tell you.
Last night I attended a panel discussion hosted by a conservative/libertarian social club, and the topic of discussion was gay marriage. Panelists included former Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga), some total dick who looks like Ed Helms from the Daily show, some guy with extremely small, soft-looking hands from AEI, and Andrew Sullivan; the panel was moderated by Grover Norquist.Let me start by saying that you are in a bad way if the most reasonable person in the room is Grover Norquist.
My hat is off to you, sir. Check it out, including the contest at the end.
Still fighting with your VCR? Get ready to fall even farther behind on the technology curve.
The DVD stands out as one of the most rapidly adopted consumer technologies ever, but in the electronics industry it's akin to an aging king in Shakespearean drama — rivals are lurking, knives drawn.Just as consumers are beginning to get comfortable with their DVD players, electronics manufacturers are set to introduce next-generation discs that store more — and would be harder to copy.
A dozen companies, headed by Sony, are pushing a disc called the Blu-ray.
The other main contender, the High Definition DVD, is promoted only by Toshiba and NEC. But it has an important endorsement from an industry group and is also expected to get Microsoft's support as the software giant seeks a toehold for its multimedia format in the consumer electronics arena.
Movie studios generally aren't commenting on the new formats. And the rival industry groups are not saying exactly when they expect to have players on the market. Both, however, consider the DVD ripe for replacement next year.
For consumers, the benefit of a new format would be better image quality. Sales of high-definition TV sets have finally started to take off, but current DVDs don't have the resolution to get the most out of HDTV sets.
Great. Even if I could justify an HDTV (which I can't) and even if there were some place in the house where it would fit (which there isn't), I figure scoring the TiVo means I've used up my allowance of technological indulgences until, oh, 2008 or so. I suppose on the bright side, video tapes are still being rented and sold, so I may not feel the fullness of my obsolecense until then anyway. Yeah, that's the ticket.
Rick Perry, last year:
"Betting the economy will pick up to solve our budget challenges, rather than making the hard decisions needed, is a recipe for an eventual tax hike," he warned."If you remember the cartoon Popeye, then surely you will understand what I mean when I say using budgetary sleights of hand is something like ol' Wimpy would have done," Perry said. "It's the same as saying, `I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.' "
Rick Perry, this year:
To pay for the $7.1 billion in tax cuts and education spending increases that Perry envisions for the 2006-07 fiscal years, the governor would reach back into fiscal 2005 and ahead into fiscal 2008 for almost 37 percent of the money. The upshot is that without that one-time windfall in budget cycles to come, that money would have to be generated some other way."You'll be back on the biennium schedule" after the one-time money shift, Sen. Florence Shapiro, R-Plano and chairman of the Senate Education Committee, said Thursday. "And then, you're stuck."
Kathy Walt, the governor's spokeswoman, said time and a recovering Texas economy would solve any such problem.
"The economic expansion will more than fill that," she said.
[...]
Perry wants to cut property taxes by $3.4 billion and increase education spending by $3.7 billion in that 2006-07 cycle. To pay for it, he proposes, among other measures, to raise cigarette taxes by a dollar a pack, legalize and tax video lottery terminals, levy a $5 surcharge on admission to strip clubs and close some loopholes that allow many businesses (including the American-Statesman) to avoid paying the state franchise tax.
But according to Perry's own figures, those changes would generate only $4.5 billion during 2006-07, leaving the $2.6 billion shortfall. To fill that hole, Perry's plan contemplates starting several of the revenue-raising strategies in the 2005 fiscal year to stockpile $1.44 billion for use during the following two years. In addition, Perry suggests shifting sales tax revenue for the first month of the 2008-09 biennium to 2006-07.
That 25th month of sales tax revenue would bring in another $600 million -- but the next biennium would once again have just 24 months of sales tax. Perry would bring in another $600 million by doing a similar acceleration of collection on the franchise tax.
Ogden asked Perry about all this when the governor testified Monday before the Joint Select Committee on Public School Finance.
"It looks to me like there's two one-time measures," Ogden said. "How are you going to replace that $2.6 billion in the future?"
Perry said the accelerated tax collections could be continued indefinitely. "That will never catch up to you," he said.
"Yeah, but you can only spend it once," Ogden said.
Perry ended the dialogue by suggesting that "rather than dig a big hole here," his budget chief Mike Morrissey would explain it all to the committee later that day. Morrissey, when he appeared, acknowledged the one-time nature of the $2.6 billion in revenue.
But he told the committee that the revenue estimates were conservative. The video lottery tax and closure of the franchise tax loopholes, he said, likely would raise much more than appears in the governor's estimates. And other economic growth, and the resultant healthier tax receipts, would also help make up the difference, he said.
A better capsule description of our Governor would be hard to find.
And just for good measure, here's how people who would be affected by one aspect of the sin taxes respond to it:
Patrons, for the most part, accept the $5 entry fee idea, but only if it truly is in the name of school financing."I'm a mom, so I support it if it does go to education," said Cyndi Rice, who was enjoying the show at Hardbodies Male Dancers on St. Mary's Street. "I don't know that it would affect my decision to come here. It's our favorite club."
A bartender questioned why the governor's plan singles out adult entertainment clubs.
"I'm all for helping education. I definitely think the teachers need to get paid more," Hardbodies bartender Sheldon Cantrell said. "But where is the lottery going? Why can't that fund education? It's hypocritical — they're singling out one business to tax instead of taxing all businesses."
For his part, Hardbodies dancer Mariano-Chris R. Perez, said he wouldn't mind the tax.
"It's going toward schools, I say go for it," he said shortly after stepping down from the club's main stage. "It would let us know the kind of clients we have here. We could see if they're willing to spend money or if they're just trying to spectate."
Compare that to how "legitimate" businesses react to the possibility that they might be asked to kick in a bit more:
Perry, lunching with reporters on the second day of a special legislative session, said an executive told him businesses mindful of the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, must be ready to move personnel on short notice.According to Perry, the official, who later was identified as USAA Chairman and CEO Bob Davis, said: "Companies have the ability to move very quickly today. ... A business activity tax as I hear it is being talked about in Austin, Texas. We've got 9,000 employees; it's not hard for us to shift those out of this state."
Davis, whose company actually employs more than 13,000 people in San Antonio, confirmed the conversation with Perry. He described his comments as "supportive" of Perry's "efforts to maintain Texas as a business-friendly state."
"To be competitive," Davis said, "companies must be very sensitive to all of the costs of doing business. If Texas, or any state, increases costs to uncompetitive levels, companies will be forced to evaluate alternatives. Alternatives, flexibility, and mobility have become particularly important to businesses since Sept. 11, 2001."
It was not the first time USAA has indicated its future in Texas was contingent on business conditions.
Let's hear it for the civic-mindedness of strippers and their customers.
(Note: the first half of this post is part of this previous post, but I didn't want it to get lost in the shuffle.)
The Perry Plan for school finance reform appears to be officially dead, and other plans are starting to come out of the woodwork.
"We're starting out with a clean slate," said Rep. Kent Grusendorf, chairman of the House Select Committee on Public School Finance.Grusendorf, R-Arlington, withdrew from consideration two pieces of legislation that contained Perry's proposals, saying the committee was not ready to vote on them. He said the committee might draw from some of the governor's proposals in writing its own bill.
Rep. Mike Krusee, who introduced the legislation containing the governor's plan, said the plan got a fair hearing.
"The governor has shown very bold leadership and deserved to be the first one to get a hearing," said Krusee, R-Round Rock.
"Now some other people and their ideas will also get a hearing. At the end of that process the committee will be in a position to judge what they want to deliver to the floor."
Grusendorf said he will begin laying out his ideas for school funding in the coming days.
In a letter to school district superintendents, Grusendorf said any new school finance system "must focus attention and resources on the differences in student demographics."
Grusendorf has relied on a study by economists at Texas A&M University that found a "significant relationship between school spending and student performance."
The researchers concluded that school districts need additional funding of between $226 million and $408 million to ensure that at least 55 percent of students pass the state's reading and math tests.
The study also found that it costs more to educate students who are economically disadvantaged, have limited English skills or have special education needs, and that it costs $4,000 more per pupil to educate a high school student compared with an elementary student.
Bigger investment leads to better results. My God, this changes everything!
Not that the idea of Kent Gruesendorf taking the lead should make anyone feel better, as this exchange makes clear.
Grusendorf did not supply details for the plan he will outline this weekend. But his committee went through its third day of testimony on the plan that Perry has put forward.Marjorie Wall, who represents the Texas State Teachers Association, told the panel that the organization opposes the provision that ties higher salaries to certain performance standards. She said that all teachers need more money and that most would be left out under Perry's incentive package.
That sparked a spirited debate between Wall and several lawmakers, with Grusendorf asking her if "socialist" salary schemes where all workers receive equal pay have ever proven effective.
"I didn't say that, Mr. Grusendorf," Wall replied, adding that Texas has fallen far below the national average for teachers' salaries.
Thanks for keeping such an open mind, Kent.
More details on various proposals are here.
House leaders have drafted a new education funding system that dramatically alters the way revenues are distributed to public schools, including for the first time a larger basic grant for secondary schools.The proposal also would eliminate so-called program weights that provide an extra percentage of funding for special categories of students – those who are low-income, bilingual, special education or career and technology specialists.
Instead, the proposal would switch to a system of block grants that would provide a specific amount of extra money for those students.
Elimination of the program weights, which have been used in Texas for two decades, is expected to draw some opposition, particularly from districts with large numbers of high-cost pupils.
A preliminary version of the plan, distributed to some House members on Thursday, is scheduled to be taken up Saturday by the 29-member House Select Committee on Public School Finance. A special legislative session on education began Tuesday.
Perhaps the most significant change is the plan's recognition of the higher costs to educate a high school or middle school student. Under the proposal, districts would receive $1,000 more per year for those students than for elementary school children.
The basic annual grant for secondary students would be $5,460, while the grant for elementary students would be $4,460. Currently, the basic grant is the same for all students.
[...]
The proposal also would update the state's education cost index, which adjusts funding for school districts by reflecting the various costs of educating students in different parts of the state. Costs are based on teacher salaries, school district size and location, and concentrations of low-income students.
Changes in the index are expected to boost funding in higher cost urban and suburban districts and reduce funding in rural areas.
A preliminary analysis indicated that an average district that is "adequately" funded would receive $6,428 per student in the 2005-06 school year. The average funding level for students receiving block grants would be $7,805.
Last year, Texas schools received an average $6,317 per student, according to the Texas Education Agency.
All school districts would be guaranteed a minimum funding increase of 2 percent – regardless of their property wealth – in the 2005-06 school year under the proposal.
House leaders are considering various options for the revenue side of the school funding equation.
One leading proposal would cut school property taxes to a rate of $1 per $100 valuation, a 50-cent reduction from current maximum $1.50. The $1 rate would become a statewide property tax on all business and residential property, and school districts would be able to levy up to 10 cents more locally for enrichment.
Creation of a state property tax, which would require a constitutional amendment, would allow the Legislature to scrap the provisions in current law that force high-wealth school districts to share their property tax revenues.
A 50-cent property tax cut would trim about $5 billion in revenue, leaving lawmakers to replace that revenue with a tax increase somewhere else. The two leading options are either an increase or expansion of the state sales tax, or an overhaul of the business franchise tax.
Meanwhile, the Statesman delved into the war of words between Governor Perry and Comptroller Strayhorn and declared Strayhorn the winner.
[A]round the Capitol, a good number of Republican and Democratic officeholders, legislative staff members and lobbyists with no particular bone to pick with Perry say the finances of his plan have a gaping hole. A $2.6 billion hole in the 2006-07 two-year state budget cycle, to be precise.And you don't necessarily need fuzzy math, an accounting degree or rampant political ambition to detect that gap. It's right there on Page 21 of the governor's plan.
To pay for the $7.1 billion in tax cuts and education spending increases that Perry envisions for the 2006-07 fiscal years, the governor would reach back into fiscal 2005 and ahead into fiscal 2008 for almost 37 percent of the money. The upshot is that without that one-time windfall in budget cycles to come, that money would have to be generated some other way.
"You'll be back on the biennium schedule" after the one-time money shift, Sen. Florence Shapiro, R-Plano and chairman of the Senate Education Committee, said Thursday. "And then, you're stuck."
Kathy Walt, the governor's spokeswoman, said time and a recovering Texas economy would solve any such problem.
"The economic expansion will more than fill that," she said.
Why don't you pull the other one, too, Kathy? It was exactly this sort of overoptimistic belief in future economic expansion that led Strayhorn to her wildly-off-the-mark prediction of the budget deficit last year. You know, her fuzzy math projection that you derided earlier this week. Fuzzy for thee, but not for me, I suppose.
Aside from Shapiro, another who sees a glitch in the Perry plan is Sen. Steve Ogden, R-Bryan, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, who attempted with little success at a committee hearing earlier this week to get Perry to explain the disparity.The critics say that Perry, in attempting to present a balanced financing plan, relied on some accounting tricks commonly used in state and federal government to balance budgets -- derisively referred to as "smoke and mirrors" -- but stretched those strategies to the breaking point.
Perry wants to cut property taxes by $3.4 billion and increase education spending by $3.7 billion in that 2006-07 cycle. To pay for it, he proposes, among other measures, to raise cigarette taxes by a dollar a pack, legalize and tax video lottery terminals, levy a $5 surcharge on admission to strip clubs and close some loopholes that allow many businesses (including the American-Statesman) to avoid paying the state franchise tax.
But according to Perry's own figures, those changes would generate only $4.5 billion during 2006-07, leaving the $2.6 billion shortfall. To fill that hole, Perry's plan contemplates starting several of the revenue-raising strategies in the 2005 fiscal year to stockpile $1.44 billion for use during the following two years. In addition, Perry suggests shifting sales tax revenue for the first month of the 2008-09 biennium to 2006-07.
That 25th month of sales tax revenue would bring in another $600 million -- but the next biennium would once again have just 24 months of sales tax. Perry would bring in another $600 million by doing a similar acceleration of collection on the franchise tax.
Ogden asked Perry about all this when the governor testified Monday before the Joint Select Committee on Public School Finance.
"It looks to me like there's two one-time measures," Ogden said. "How are you going to replace that $2.6 billion in the future?"
Perry said the accelerated tax collections could be continued indefinitely. "That will never catch up to you," he said.
"Yeah, but you can only spend it once," Ogden said.
And once again we have those who forget history repeating it. Here's Rick Perry last year:
"Betting the economy will pick up to solve our budget challenges, rather than making the hard decisions needed, is a recipe for an eventual tax hike," he warned."If you remember the cartoon Popeye, then surely you will understand what I mean when I say using budgetary sleights of hand is something like ol' Wimpy would have done," Perry said. "It's the same as saying, `I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.' "
Makes a nice contrast to this year, doesn't it?
Finally, the Star Telegram puts some of the blame for the recent unpleasantness back on Strayhorn, while the Chron lambastes Perry for his pushing of "sin taxes". And so it goes.
I got email from Nathan Wilcox yesterday about a new site he's been working on called DriveDemocracy, which got some startup help from MoveOn. Their first task is to advocate for a school finance reform plan that actually puts the interests of Texas' schoolchildren first. Check it out, and sign their petition while you're there.
I'm trying, I'm really trying, not to make a joke about what a jury of his peers might look like:
With more than 70,000 witnesses, it will be hard for Mark Roberts to claim innocence.But the 39-year-old Briton, also known as "the Super Bowl streaker" since he darted across the Reliant Stadium field wearing nothing but a thong on Feb. 1, plans to take his misdemeanor case to trial.
Roberts, of Liverpool, England, was in Houston on Thursday as his June 21 jury trial was scheduled on a charge that could land him in the Harris County Jail for up to 180 days if he is convicted.
He acknowledges walking past multiple layers of security before sprinting onto the field, where he tore off a phony referee's uniform to reveal an online casino ad painted on his skin.
But Roberts insists he had no idea that running onto the field was prohibited.
"He is charged with criminal trespassing, not streaking," said his attorney, Sharon Levine. "The way the law is, you are entitled to a warning."
New England Patriots linebacker Matt Chatham knocked Roberts off his feet, and police carried him off the field.
Six Harris County jurors will hear the case before Criminal Court at Law Judge Diane Bull.
"The main issue is for us to separate out what his action was on the field and get to whether he actually violated criminal trespass," Levine said.
Roberts claims to have streaked more than 300 times. He has criminal cases pending in England and Paris, according to his Web site.
In other news, Governor Perry's office has strenuously denied that they are considering adding a "streaking tax" to their list of school finance reform proposals.
The Texas Ethic Commission is investigating Governor Perry's trip to the Bahamas to discuss school finance reform with various well-heeled contributors and anti-tax ideologues.
At issue is the money Perry used to pay for himself, wife Anita and several top staffers. Perry spokeswoman Kathy Walt on Wednesday declined to say how much was spent but noted that it will be listed on Perry's next finance report.[...]
The group traveled by private plane to the Abaco Islands for Presidents Day weekend. The governor's office could not immediately say who owned it.
Oh, I'm sure they know exactly who owned it and are just stalling for time. I mean, what do you think? Did they all stand on the runway with their thumbs out and holding a sign that said "Bahamas, will split fuel cost"? Maybe someone slowed down as they taxied past and said "Well, we're going as far as Durham, do you mind riding in the back?"
The trip is under fire from Judicial Watch, a government watchdog group that filed a complaint with the Texas Ethics Commission."Governor Perry's long weekend trip outside the U.S., with campaign contributors and state employees, amounts to a personal tropical island vacation, unrelated to any legitimate campaign event," Judicial Watch said in its complaint.
[...]
[Perry spokeswoman Kathy] Walt said a response has been filed, but it would not be released. Under state law, such filings cannot be disclosed by the Ethics Commission, but parties involved in a case are not bound by that confidentiality requirement.
Walt said Wednesday that the investigation would absolve Perry of any wrongdoing.
"I think it will show exactly what we have said all along: The primary purpose (of the trip) was to discuss policy and political issues," Walt said.
But Russell Verney, Judicial Watch's southwestern director, thinks otherwise.
"Traveling to the Bahamas to have a conversation with somebody is an inappropriate use of campaign contributions," Verney said Wednesday. "If the entire population of Houston was in the Bahamas that weekend, perhaps it's worth going there to campaign. Beyond that, it's a vacation trip."
Verney, a former adviser to Ross Perot, said his organization is nonpartisan and has no political ax to grind with Perry.
Walt declined to release a detailed account of the trip. She did say Perry went scuba diving.
"There were substantial discussions daily," Walt said.
Presumably, not while they were scuba diving.
In 1998, the commission gave a resounding thumbs-down to an officeholder who wanted to use political money for he and his family to attend public events to foster an image as a family-values kind of guy."To the overwhelming majority of my constituents, it is critically important that I be perceived to be a 'family man' with a close-knit family who, with his family, goes to many public events," the unidentified requestor argued.
Forget it, the commission said in its opinion.
"Presumably a spouse or parent would be engaged in recreational activities with family members regardless of whether he or she was running for office," the opinion said.
Ladies and gentlemen, a new definition of "chutzpah". I'd love to know who this fine example of family values is, but the description doesn't narrow down the field all that much. Oh, well.
By the way, in the event that TEC finds Perry guilty, his campaign will be fined the cost of the trip. I'm sure he's quaking in his penny loafers.
The feds are attempting to have Jeff Skilling's bail revoked by claiming that his recent drunken shenanigans violated the terms of his release.
Federal prosecutors say ex-Enron CEO Jeff Skilling violated his $5 million bond in New York City earlier this month by being severely intoxicated, trying to lift a woman's blouse in search of an FBI wiretap and attempting to steal a car's license plate, according to a document filed in court Wednesday.Prosecutors want U.S. District Judge Sim Lake to consider further restrictions on Skilling as he awaits trial -- but haven't said whether they want him jailed or whether they will ask that some or all of his bond be forfeited.
They could also ask the judge to limit his travel or require alcohol or drug testing and treatment.
[...]
Prosecutors note that Skilling's bond, set Feb. 19, required him to:
·refrain from excessive use of alcohol;
·report any contact with law enforcement as soon as possible to pretrial services; and
·not commit any federal, state or local offense.
Prosecutors contend that Skilling did use alcohol excessively, did not report to pretrial services -- rather, they called him after media reports -- and committed two state offenses in trying to steal the license plate and attempting to lift the woman's blouse.
Petrocelli said Skilling's lawyers should have done a better job of immediately getting in touch with pretrial services of behalf of their client.
The government said any violation of these bond conditions can result in a warrant for a defendant's arrest, imprisonment and forfeiture on the bond.
You know, if you're going to go on the kind of bender that turns into a potential bail-revoking public spectacle, you may as well go all out and get your money's worth. You should really have more to show for it than attempted license-plate theft and blouse-lifting. Sadly for Skilling, he may not get another chance.
You've probably heard of the Fan Cost Index, which is the Team Marketing Report's annual tally of how much it costs for a family of four to attend a sporting event, in this case a Major League Baseball game. I've always felt their index was skewed way too high, so I'm pleased to see that Doug Pappas has written an article which details some of the problems with the FCI and shows some more useful variations of it.
Next week, he's going to look at the "average ticket prices" and will show how fans in most cities can do far better. I'll anticipate some of his data for Houston by noting that the Astros have a couple of tailor-made promos for cost-conscious fans: "Coca-Cola Double Play Tuesdays", in which "fans can purchase an Outfield Deck seat at the Minute Maid Park Box Office for just $1.00 with the presentation of two empty 1-liter bottles of Coke", and "Coca-Cola Value Nights (Fridays)" in which fans will get "four Mezzanine tickets, four hotdogs, four Cokes, and two Astros caps for $50 with the presentation of four labels from 2-liter Coca-Cola products at the Minute Maid Park Box Office." Both of these, needless to say, compare very favorably to the Astros' overall FCI of $177.52, the "average ticket" portion of which is $22.88 per ticket, or $91.52 for four.
Via Seeing the Forest comes this analysis of the cost of stealing an election. It doesn't go into any technical details, but it does show that it wouldn't take that much of an investment to have a sizeable impact. Check it out.
You know when you've taken a good idea too far? Looks like Carole Keeton Strayhorn doesn't.
Opening another front in her criticism of Gov. Rick Perry's school finance plan, Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn on Wednesday said that instead of taxing strip clubs, the state should shut them down.As one way of raising money to offset property tax cuts and pay for new education spending, Perry has proposed charging a $5 admission tax on strip clubs. He said this would raise $45 million a year.
"The state of Texas does not need to be partnering with these clubs that are degrading, particularly to women," said Strayhorn.
[...]
Strayhorn said her office is working on legislation to ban the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages at sexually oriented nightclubs.
"If these clubs can stay in business selling lemonade and iced tea, at least I will feel better about the safety of the dancers," she said.
Apparently, closing the clubs and putting those women out of work is somehow better for them. At least Strayhorn's conscience will be put at ease. And not to put too fine a point on it, but SOBs generate sales tax revenues for the state just like other businesses do. Would the Comptroller care to share with us an estimate of the financial consequences of shutting them down? I'm thinking that's a "no".
The rest of the article is mostly more of the same bickering between Strayhorn and Perry that we've been subjected to lately. We're not even a week into this special session and already it's grating on my last nerve.
I'm pretty sure this is a sign of the impending apocalypse: The PGA tour is concerned about obnoxious fans.
Jerry Kelly was standing over his ball at the 18th tee at TPC at Sawgrass. Last group, third round, The Players Championship. The tension was so thick, you could cut it with an unoriginal cry for attention.Kelly was, by his guesstimate, "nanoseconds" from taking his club back to begin his swing when a scream pierced the air around PGA Tour headquarters at Ponte Vedra, Fla. "Noo-nan!!!" a man in the crowd bellowed, borrowing from Caddyshack, a movie that has been around since 1980.
"Pretty pitiful," Kelly said. "But Jacksonville fans have been fantastic to me, so I'm hoping someone is beating him up right now."
[...]
PGA Tour commissioner Tim Finchem is intent on courting the interest -- and yes, the disposable dollars -- of mainstream fans. The tug of war between old-fashioned civility and an increasingly in-your-face society was never more clear than at the Match Play Championships at La Costa in Carlsbad, Calif., in February. During the championship match against Tiger Woods, Davis Love III refused to continue playing until security ushered a heckler away.
A heckler wearing a Woods logo hat. Yelling things such as "No Love" when Woods' opponent was about to hit the ball.
Though Woods said the fan was out of line and defended Love, a debate raged. To traditionalists, Love was merely standing up for fair play and decency. To others, Love was a portrait of a spoiled, pampered example of what happens to somebody who spends too much time in a country club environment.
Do the casual fans Woods and John Daly bring to golf have any obligation to learn the accepted etiquette? Should golf go with the flow of team sports, which have a time-honored tradition of fans heckling to their lungs' content?
You can count me among the leather lungs, at least at pro and college events. (Obnoxious fans at Little League games, I trust it goes without saying, should not be tolerated.) I consider it a part of the experience.
At the 2002 Skins Game, a camera went off during Woods' backswing. Caddie Steve Williams accosted the offending photographer, took the camera and threw it in a lake. Episodes such as that, or the Love dust-up, invariably lead talking heads to ask why a baseball player can hit a 95 mph fastball in a stadium of screaming fans and a golfer chafes at the click of a camera."I don't think we'd have a problem with it if it were loud all the time," Woods said. "I grew up on a military base, planes flying in, especially with Desert Storm all the first year. Guns going off, it was just normal. All of a sudden you hit quiet, dead silence, and you can hear a gnat flying over it's so quiet. And anything will disturb your concentration."
And you can count me among those who wonder the same thing. I can accept Woods' explanation, except that fans who were noisy all the time would be banned anyway.
When Woods played TPC at Scottsdale in 1999, security officials had to wrestle a particular abusive fan to the ground. The inebriated fan was carrying a gun. No wonder Woods flinches when he hears a noise during his swing.
Okay, that one's over the line. Way over the line. After 9/11, you can't get into a stadium without at least a bag check, and I'd hope that after that attack on Monica Seles some years ago that tennis fans are subject to similar searches. For sure it's reasonable for the PGA to do likewise.
Look for more criticism of Team Bush for its colossal bungling of the Iraq invasion, led by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.
Pelosi, who voted against the war in October 2002 and against the $87 billion spending package, has been relatively measured in her criticism of the war up until now.But after a month of high casualties in Iraq, conversations with constituents over the Easter recess, and her own Baghdad visit in March, Pelosi has decided to escalate the House Democrats’ criticism of the war.
She will expand on her criticism that the administration’s promise that American troops would be greeted with “rockets and not roses” and harp on the failure to find any weapons of mass destruction.
[...]
Pelosi advised her colleagues that regardless of how they voted on war, they can always fault the administration for its failure to plan, the aide added.
Pelosi will draw heavily from the public statements made by Bush and members of his Cabinet, laying out the administration’s own words and comparing them to recent events and faulting the administration for having what she will call a “sketch of a plan.”
“The Bush administration has gone about the transfer of sovereignty precisely backward. Instead of fostering a legitimate government and choosing a date to transfer sovereignty, the administration picked a date off the calendar without any idea who the new government would be,” according to an advance copy of the speech.
[...]
Pelosi’s concerns seemed to be widespread in the caucus, and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) also stepped up his criticism in response to the April casualties.
“There were 87 deaths in the first 15 days of the month, which as of April 20 is 101,” Hoyer told reporters.
He added, “As someone who supported the mission, and still believes the mission is a positive one, I have been very disappointed with the management by this administration of this effort from the fall, when General Shinseki indicated he needed to maintain at least 200,000 troops. There is no doubt that he was correct.”
That all sounds about right to me. Keep the focus on the administration's words and deeds, and how the reality has completely differed from the promises.
However, some Democratic lawmakers cautioned party leaders against being overly critical of the reconstruction effort. Rep. Charles Stenholm (D-Texas), who faces a difficult re-election urged that the party adopt a message that can play in all parts of the country.
I would be very interested to know what kind of message Rep. Stenholm has in mind. In fact, I'm so interested in this that I plan to ask him. I'll let you know what kind of answer I get. Regardless of that, I do hope that the Dems listen to him and take his concerns into account.
UPDATE: Here's her speech. Pretty darned good if you ask me.
John Kerry will be in Houston tomorrow for Earth Day. The scoop, via Get Donkey:
Earth Day with John KerryRally for the Environment
April 22 - This Thursday
Doors open at 11:00 AM
University of Houston Main Campus
4800 CalhounLynn Eusan Park -
across from University Center and next to University HiltonFree Parking available in Lot 1A
Paid Parking in Hilton Parking GarageFor security reasons, no bags allowed
As noted, Texans for Kerry has more, including an invitation to a much swankier event (PDF).
This is getting to be a sun-rises-in-the-East thing: The Governor and the Comptroller are bickering again over school finance reform proposals. I'll leave it to you to determine for yourselves who's zooming who, but in the meantime I'd like to comment on this:
Perry wants to achieve equity in funding for schools by collecting business property taxes statewide and distributing that money to local districts. Residential property taxes would remain at the local level.Under that scenario, Highland Park in Dallas would have $13,900 more per student, according to Perry's numbers, while the neighboring Dallas school district would get $179.
Perry was asked about this discrepancy during his appearance before the House Select Committee on Public School Finance. He said that his plan provides more equity than the current system for the vast majority of students.
"Keep in mind the big picture," Perry said. "Ninety-eight percent of the students in the state of Texas are educated outside those superwealthy districts."
Perry said he is open to "ideas on how to minimize this windfall" for about a dozen districts whose wealth comes from expensive homes. He said his plan would add an average $375 per student statewide.
But some lawmakers are questioning whether Perry's plan would meet the equity requirements set by the Texas Supreme Court. The court ruled in 1989 that districts must be able to raise substantially similar revenue per pupil at similar levels of taxation.
I don't know how you can square "$13,900 more per student" for Highland Park and $179 more per student in Dallas with any kind of notion of equity. I'm also wondering if that kind of discrepancy is throwing off the overall average of $375 per student per district that Perry is claiming. Look at the sidebar popup, which says that Alamo Heights in San Antonio would get an extra $3339 per student while Eanes in Austin would reap an extra $5941. I'd like to know how the numbers change if you take those districts out of the picture.
And yes, I know that DISD has a lot more students than Highland Park does, so on an absolute level it might get at least as much extra money overall. That doesn't change the per-district inequities, nor does it affect the average increase for each district.
Here's a little bit more about the Perry/Strayhorn dispute:
A spokeswoman for the governor called Ms. Strayhorn's numbers "patently false" because they overestimated property tax cuts in Mr. Perry's plan and "double-counted" the costs of eliminating Robin Hood sharing of property taxes.The comptroller shot back that Mr. Perry low-balled certain costs to make it look more beneficial for school districts than it really is.
Like I said, make up your own minds.
For now, even though the session has been gavelled into order, most legislators have been dismissed until next week at the earliest.
Legislative leaders still haven't reached a consensus about how to replace the current finance system, which forces property-wealthy school districts to share their property tax revenue with poorer districts. The task of finding a solution now rests on a few dozen lawmakers; everyone else was sent home until next week while committees in each chamber begin their work.In the House, where all revenue-raising measures must originate, the Select Committee on Public School Finance will meet at 11 a.m. today. State Rep. Kent Grusendorf, R-Arlington, is chairman of the 29-member committee.
"I've asked Kent to meet through the weekend to allow people that can't get here because they're teachers or they're working during the week to go on and participate on the weekend," House Speaker Tom Craddick said. "So I'd say we'll know where the House side is probably sometime next week."
The Senate Committee on Education, led by Florence Shapiro, R-Plano, will meet Thursday morning to listen to options, and the Senate Finance Committee will have a Monday afternoon hearing to hash out the money side of the issue.
Some of them are not too happy about the meet and adjourn session so far.
[Rep. Steve] Wolens, a Dallas Democrat who is retiring from the House after 12 terms, complained that Mr. Perry called the session before a consensus was reached among lawmakers. Mr. Wolens also questioned why the session was immediately adjourned until next week so a select committee can craft legislation."Why didn't we just come next week rather than this week?" he said. "We ought to be doing more than just postponing for a week our voting."
After Monday's session, [Rep. Jim] Dunnam fired off a press release echoing Mr. Wolens' complaints and suggesting "the real plan" on school finance is "being drawn in private."
Yesterday, Perry took the unusual step of appearing before the House Select Committee on Public School Finance. He got grilled pretty good, too.
[Perry] was asked by Rep. Mike Villarreal, D-San Antonio, why Villarreal should support raising money from unstable "sin taxes" for future funding when 95 percent of students in his House district benefit from the current Robin Hood shift of dollars.Perry cited his office's research suggesting average gains of $375 per student statewide under his plan as school taxes drop. He said the San Antonio school district would reap nearly $600 more per student, with the property-wealthy Alamo Heights district gaining more than $3,000 per student.
Villarreal, reacting to the potential gap between the districts, said, "That's also a concern."
Perry said more work is needed to buffer such gaps but noted his plan would ensure equitable funding for districts encompassing 98 percent of the state's 4.2 million students, an improvement over the current system, leaving about 20 districts, including Alamo Heights, free to spend considerably more per student or cut taxes.
Perry continued: "If the debate is going to circle around 2 percent of the students in the state of Texas versus 98 percent of the students, then the fact of the matter is we're probably not going to be successful because I'm not sure that anyone in this room or anyone in this building can draw the perfect plan from an equity standpoint."
Perry told reporters he hopes "no one will throw the baby away just because it's got a birth mark or a bad spot. The idea that someone is not going to vote for this plan because it's not 'perfect' I think defeats our purpose."
I can see what Perry's getting at, but it seems to me that it's not the legislators he has to convince. It's the courts, whose ruling about school finance equity a decade ago led to Robin Hood in the first place, that need to buy into it. What's the point of passing Perry's plan if it's going to get bounced as unconstitutional?
I'm not sure what to make of this:
As he left the room, he said, "This is like Iraq."
Anyone wanna speculate what Perry might have meant by that?
Finally, Perry's newfound love of gambling has alarmed some longtime supporters.
Less than two years ago, Gov. Rick Perry warned that any attempt to expand gambling in Texas would have a "short life span" on his desk.Now Perry wants to make revenue from new video slot machines a centerpiece of his school finance plan, leaving many gambling opponents, particularly those in religious circles, feeling betrayed and angry.
"Obviously, we were very surprised and kind of sad," said Bee Moorhead, director of Texas Impact, a multifaith religious group. "It's quite a shock coming from the governor, since he had made that stand earlier."
Livid would better describe the reaction from representatives of the Baptist General Convention of Texas, the state's largest Baptist group. They say that they have been trying to present their objections to Perry since January but that they can't get in to see him.
"We've been totally snubbed by the governor's office," said Phil Strickland, longtime director of the Christian Life Commission, the public policy office of the Dallas-based Baptist convention. "It's amazing to me that he would not want to listen to a significant part of the religious community on this issue."
Hey, it could've been worse. He could have had you all arrested.
Perry contends that his plan does not expand gambling but rather adds state regulation -- and taxation -- to an existing activity.In a recent interview, Perry said that the legalization of video slots -- called video lottery terminals, or VLTs -- would reduce gambling.
"I think it is the consolidating of an activity that is going on in the state in rampant proportions in the form of eight-liners," Perry said. Eight-liners are slot-machinelike devices that can legally pay out noncash prizes.
Perry said he envisions a ban on eight-liners to accompany his legislation.
"The state of Texas is not benefiting one whit, and I look at ... video lottery terminals as a way to substantially decrease the amount of gambling that's going on in the state of Texas," he said.
I confess - I don't understand this at all. How can the legalization of VLTs lead to a decrease in gambling while at the same time provide a stable revenue source? I'm confused.
In the Legislature, gambling foes greet the governor's slot machine proposal, the latest in a growing list of legal games of chance, with a sense of resignation."It is just our hunger for more money," said state Rep. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, an ardent gambling critic. "It's still a moral issue, but the voters have spoken, and the voters have said they want lottery gambling. This just makes it electronic."
State Rep. Arlene Wohlgemuth, R-Burleson, said she'll vote against the plan nevertheless.
"We all succumbed to, 'The lottery is going to fund education' several years ago," she said. "The video lottery terminals are just a hairsbreadth away from being casino gambling and is not going to be as beneficial as it is harmful. We're going to suffer from the revenue that we produce."
I think that's the smartest thing I've ever heard Arlene Wohlgemuth say. It also points up, once again, how unlikely it is that the Perry plan will become reality.
For all the dumping that some of us smartass local bloggers do on Chron hotshot columnist Rick Casey, he is occasionally able to print something new and interesting.
The shadow of U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison already looms over Austin. A top Washington aide of hers recently confirmed rampant rumors of her gubernatorial intentions."If Perry's (poll) numbers are anything like they are now, we're going," he said.
Hutchison, who hasn't had to deal with school finance, is seen as unbeatable. So Austin talk has Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst running for the Senate and [Comptroller CaroleKeeton] Strayhorn seeking his post.
Amazing what can happen when you pick up the phone and work a contact, eh? In addition to this being the strongest statement about Hutchison's intent yet, I believe this is the first I've heard of Strayhorn possibly running for Lite Guv. She hasn't given any public indication of that herself, but the scenario presented makes sense to me. Of course, if KBH does run for Governor in 2006, I would expect to see Rick Perry run for Senate, as he's as capable of reading polls as she is. Either way, there's four top Republicans and three offices that they jointly covet. Something will have to give.
How civilized. Everybody seems to have kissed and made up in the state Senate.
The Texas Senate sought to rediscover its clubby self Tuesday.The start of a special session on school finance marked the first time the full Senate had convened since October, when a third special session on redistricting ended with passage of a Republican congressional plan, $57,000 worth of probationary fines hanging over the wallets of 11 Democratic senators and partisan ill will in the air.
But the Democrats who fled to Albuquerque, N.M., last year, shutting down the Senate and delaying action on the redistricting map, were present and accounted for on Tuesday, shaking hands and joking with their Republican colleagues.
Democrats delivered about half of the 19 effusive nominating speeches for Sen. Jeff Wentworth of San Antonio, a Republican who was unanimously elected president pro tempore, or assistant presiding officer, an honor that makes him third in line of succession to the governor's office.
"You're not as mean-spirited as you seemed, maybe last summer," joked Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, addressing Wentworth across the Senate floor.
[...]
"You've got to be professional and put partisan and petty fights aside," said Whitmire, the Senate's "dean," or longest-serving member.
"We are really friends," he added, describing how traditional relationships among senators often resemble memberships in an exclusive club. The Senate includes only 31 members, and senators of both parties are accustomed to debating each other on the floor then sharing lunch in the lounge.
I'm sure all that's true. I just think that it'd be way more convincing (to me, anyway) if they quoted someone other than John Whitmire, who isn't exactly beloved among his Democratic compatriots right now. Look at this quote and tell me you don't see a few ripples underneath the surface:
Sen. Gonzalo Barrientos, D-Austin, said he still had visions of "orange parking barrels and orange cones in my dreams."
In other words, maybe we've forgiven, but we haven't exactly forgotten. I also wouldn't be at all surprised to hear similar under the breath sentiments muttered by some GOP Senators. And of course, this says nothing about the House, which I expect will be more partisan, not less.
True to his word, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, the Senate's Republican presiding officer, took steps on Tuesday to restore a tradition requiring two-thirds of the Senate to approve debate on any legislation.Dewhurst's decision to bypass that tradition during the redistricting fight prompted the walkout. Now, Democratic senators will have more clout over educational proposals even though they are outnumbered by Republicans 19-12 because some of their votes will be needed to bring a bill up for debate.
For months, Dewhurst has been predicting that senators will not let old differences over redistricting block their efforts to devise a new school funding plan.
Dewhurst said he will honor the two-thirds tradition as long as senators of both parties cooperate in seeking consensus on educational changes. If they don't, he warned in an interview last week, he will bypass the procedure "faster than a New York second."
The proper expression is "a New York minute", but that's not important right now. In practical terms, this means that there will be a blocker bill parked atop of the Senate calendar. The tradition, for those who tuned in late, is that the first bill introduced in the Senate is a meaningless bill whose sole purpose is to take a place ahead of all other bills the Senate considers. Senate rules say that any bill must get a two-thirds majority vote to be brought to the floor ahead of some other bill. There was no blocker bill in the last special session on redistricting, so with nothing ahead of it on the agenda, a simple majority vote was all that was needed to bring it to the floor for debate and a final vote.
How can Dewhurst "bypass" this rule - and note that while having a blocker bill is a tradition, once it's there the two-thirds requirement is a rule - if he feels like it? There may be other means, but I'd think the simplest way would be to bring the blocker bill itself up for a vote. Once it's cleared off the calendar, the next bill in line can be debated and voted on with simple majority approval. By the way, I take this as another sign that all is not quite as happy and carefree as the article indicates.
UPDATE: A bit more on the installation of Sen. Wentworth as President Pro Tem of the Senate. This one is more convincing to me in its depiction of restored collegiality, but I remain skeptical.
Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute makes A Conservative Case for Voting Democratic.
Complaints about Republican profligacy have led the White House to promise to mend its ways. But Bush's latest budget combines accounting flim-flam with unenforceable promises. So how do we put Uncle Sam on a sounder fiscal basis?Vote Democratic.
Democrats obviously are no pikers when it comes to spending. But the biggest impetus for higher spending is partisan uniformity, not partisan identity. Give either party complete control of government, and the Treasury vaults are quickly emptied. Neither Congress nor the President wants to tell the other no. Both are desperate to prove they can "govern"—which means creating new programs and spending more money. But share power between parties, and out of principle or malice they check each other. Even if a President Kerry proposed more spending than would a President Bush, a GOP Congress would appropriate less. That's one reason the Founders believed in the separation of powers.
Consider the record. William Niskanen, former acting chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, has put together a fascinating analysis of government spending since 1953. Real federal outlays grew fastest, 4.8% annually, in the Kennedy-Johnson years, with Congress under Democratic control. The second-fastest rise, 4.4%, occurred with George W. Bush during Republican rule. The third-biggest spending explosion, 3.7%, was during the Carter administration, a time of Democratic control. In contrast, the greatest fiscal stringency, 0.4%, occurred during the Eisenhower years. The second-best period of fiscal restraint, 0.9%, was in the Clinton era. Next came the Nixon-Ford years, at 2.5%, and Ronald Reagan's presidency, at 3.3%. All were years of shared partisan control.
Bush officials argue that it is unfair to count military spending, but Dwight Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson, and Ronald Reagan also faced international challenges that impeded their domestic plans. Moreover, if you do strip out military spending and consider only the domestic record, GOP chief executives emerge in an even worse light. In terms of real domestic discretionary outlays, which are most easily controlled, the biggest spender in the past 40 years is George W. Bush, with expenditure racing ahead 8.2% annually, according to Stephen Moore of the Club for Growth. No. 2 on the list is Gerald Ford, at 8%. No. 3 is Richard Nixon. At least the latter two, in contrast to Bush, faced hostile Congresses.
Bandow is not the first libetarian type to make this argument - I've seen several variations on it, going back to those heady days of Libertarians for Dean. The Cato folks have also been fairly non-enamored with Bush for some time, though I suppose one could say that it's the nature of a libertarian to dislike whoever's in power. Be that as it may, it's still striking to see an article like this in a Republican-oriented publication like Fortune. If the meme ever gets picked up by the mainstream press, it could get some traction. Via O-Dub.
Another long newsie roundup. Hey, at least I'm sparing you the agony of long page-load times, right?
Democrats unite to defend House seats
Five Texas Democrats targeted for employment extinction by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land, are banding together in a high-stakes mission to keep their jobs.The five -- U.S. Reps. Martin Frost of Arlington, Charles Stenholm of Abilene, Chet Edwards of Waco, Max Sandlin of Marshall and Nick Lampson of Beaumont -- are embarking on a series of joint fund-raisers beginning Monday in New York.
The Democratic Party has made saving the targeted Texans a top priority nationwide and is helping in every way it can. Party leaders even successfully pushed millions for pet projects to the five Texans in the transportation bill being hammered out in Congress.
To keep themselves competitive in districts redrawn by Republicans to favor GOP candidates, the targeted Democrats are focusing heavily on raising money for their campaigns. According to the latest filings with the Federal Election Commission, as of March 31, Frost has $1.18 million cash on hand; Edwards has more than $800,000; Stenholm has nearly $600,000; Sandlin has about $375,000 ; and Lampson has $490,000.
Democrats are on track to spend millions of dollars in the Texas races. So are Republicans.
Monday's fund-raiser is the first in a series of national fund-raisers for the Texas Democrats. It will be hosted by several House members from the area. Next will be a Washington event May 12, hosted by the top Democrats on the House committees. Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., will sponsor a fund-raiser May 15 in Los Angeles, and Illinois Reps. Rahm Emanuel, and Rep. Janice Schakowsky will follow with a Chicago fund-raiser June 7.
All five Texans are touting their records and experience, and they are criticizing DeLay at every opportunity for his role in trying to run the Democrats out of office through redistricting. They are also, to varying degrees, distancing themselves from the expected Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts.
[...]
None of the targeted Democrats is exactly rushing to embrace his party's presidential candidate. Frost, who endorsed retired Gen. Wesley Clark during the primary, said he would "of course" support the Democratic ticket, although he added that he did not expect Kerry to campaign for House members in Texas.
Stenholm, who also supported Clark, has "no plans at this time" to endorse Kerry, press secretary Anne Keller said. In a statement, Edwards said, "I will support the Democratic ticket but intend to continue my role as an independent-minded voice in Congress for my district."
Sandlin, who endorsed Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., until he dropped out and then campaigned for Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., is "focusing on his own race," spokesman Ellis Brachman said. And Lampson, who did not endorse any candidate in the primaries, "will support the nominee" spokesman Bobby Zafarnia said.
Just a thought here - how about getting Wes Clark down here to campaign for both these guys and John Kerry? I know, it makes too much sense.
Via TalkLeft: this WaPo article on BlogAds and how candidates who are using them now are faring in comparison to Ben Chandler.
More than two dozen candidates, meanwhile, have placed orders for similar ads with Henry Copeland, a North Carolina entrepreneur who handled Chandler's ads.[...]
Most of his clients, Copeland said, are Democrats. Some are unknown, such as Jeff Seemann, 35, a music programmer who is running for the House in Ohio. Others are more established. Reps. Martin Frost (D-Tex.) and Brad Carson (D-Okla.) have bought blog ads. So have Sen. John F. Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, and Tony Knowles, the former governor of Alaska who is vying for the Senate.
Bryan Coffman, a Republican who is challenging Chandler in this year's election, has stolen a page from his playbook, placing ads on a handful of conservative blogs. So has former representative John Thune, a Republican who is challenging Senate Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.).
The ads, not surprisingly, tend to focus less on local issues than on national trends and storylines. There are frequent references to the candidates' favorite bogeymen. Carson, for example, does not actually name his Republican opponent in one of his ads. But, he assures viewers, the candidate is "Jesse Helms and Phil Gramm rolled into one." A Democrat running in Texas says, "I've got the guts to take on Tom DeLay."
Sheesh. Would it have killed them to have mentioned Richard Morrison's name?
Most of the campaign representatives interviewed declined to estimate how much they have raised through their ads. But a few said they have yet to match Chandler's success. A spokesman for Joseph M. Hoeffel III, a Democratic senatorial candidate from Pennsylvania, said his campaign has raised between $8,000 and $10,000. Seemann, the House candidate in Ohio, said he has raised about $9,000 from a single $400 ad he placed.
Those all sound like pretty good returns on their investments to me. It's consistent with what these candidates told me awhile back.
Colleagues add to Frost’s war chest
Rep. Martin Frost (D) has won the first round of the member-to-member fundraising contest against fellow Texas Rep. Pete Sessions (R), in a race that pits two members of the House Rules Committee against each other.But Sessions still maintains an overall fundraising advantage, drawing heavily on the Dallas business community to show $1.9 million cash on hand at the end of the first quarter reporting period, compared to Frost’s $1.18 million.
[...]
Frost has received donations from 58 members, for a total of $65,000, drawing on his 25 years of Washington connections and tapping the goodwill of many members he helped elect as chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 1996 and 1998 campaign cycles.
Sessions has not done nearly as well with his fellow lawmakers, receiving donations from 39 House Republicans, for a total of $55,000.
However, among Texas lawmakers, Sessions clearly has the advantage, as Frost has been rebuffed by many of the lawmakers who know him best. Frost has received donations from only four of the 15 Texas House Democrats, many of whom face tough races themselves.
By contrast, 12 of Sessionss 15 GOP colleagues have donated to him, either through their personal campaigns or their leadership PACs, said Guy Harrison, Sessions’s chief of staff.
Both candidates have benefited from the party’s leadership PACs.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s PAC to the Future donated the maximum $10,000 to Frost, while Minority Whip Steny Hoyer’s (D-Md.) PAC also gave $10,000 and Caucus Chairman Robert Menendez’s (D-N.J.) PAC donated $5,000. Sessions has also fared well by his party leaders, receiving the maximum amount from nearly every leadership PAC.
Frost’s current lead in member-to-member giving might be washed away when GOP lawmakers become aware that Sessions is trailing in member-to-member giving.
Sessions can also rely on the support of Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier (R-Calif.), who has been actively working to defenestrate Frost, the ranking member on his committee.
Edwards kicks off re-election campaign in Aggieland
U.S. Rep. Chet Edwards on Wednesday officially kicked off what may be the most difficult race of his career.
The seven-term Waco Democrat is trying to win over voters in the new heavily Republican District 17, one of several in Texas redrawn last year to increase the chances of GOP victory. His old District 11 didn't include deeply conservative Brazos County, home to Texas A&M University in College Station.
But the county isn't exactly enemy territory: Edwards is an Aggie.
"To be an Aggie is a terminal disease, and they never get over it," said Charles Elliott, a political science professor at Texas A&M-Commerce. "How much of an advantage it will be to Edwards, I don't know. But there is a long tradition of very intense loyalty by the students and graduates of Texas A&M."
Edwards traveled to College Station on Wednesday for his first campaign event, a reception hosted by four retired Army generals and three veteran leaders. Edwards also launched a television ad in Brazos County touting his record on national defense — and mentioning that he's a 1974 A&M graduate.
"It's a key swing county in this district," Edwards told The Associated Press. "I have supported A&M research projects, and I think I've earned the support of a lot of Republicans and Independents in the Brazos County area."
Edwards didn't want to kick off his campaign until he had a Republican opponent, which was decided in Tuesday's GOP runoff election. State Rep. Arlene Wohlgemuth, R-Burleson, defeated former Waco school board member Dot Snyder after a contentious race.
Edwards said some Snyder supporters plan to support him in the race for the district that includes Waco and President Bush's ranch in Crawford.
Snyder, asked Tuesday night if she was ready to support Wohlgemuth and work toward defeating Edwards, said she had "not even thought about that" and would not decide her plans until returning from a vacation.
But Wohlgemuth said Wednesday that she is confident she will be able to reunite her party despite the negative ads leading up to the GOP primary and runoff.
"I have been in politics long enough ... and you cannot take these things personally," Wohlgemuth said. "We have to keep the goal in mind of defeating Chet Edwards in November."
It's interesting that Dot Snyder didn't fall right into line behind Arlene Wohlgemuth. That must've been a nastier primary than I thought - it was certainly an expensive one, and Edwards starts out with a hefty financial edge because of it. I'd expect her to give at least a lukewarm endorsement of Wohlgemuth when all is said and done, though. And for what it's worth, Edwards has at least one Aggie's support.
BAYTOWN — U.S. Rep. Nick Lampson chatted with local officials and businesspeople and made a bid for re-election during a meet-and-greet at the Baytown Chamber of Commerce Friday.The Beaumont Democrat, currently serving in the 9th Congressional District, is running in the newly drawn 2nd District, which was created during the redistricting battle last year in the Texas Legislature. He faces former Harris County Criminal District Judge Ted Poe, who won the March 9 Republican primary.
Lampson said that the new district, which stretches from his home base of Jefferson County to the “FM 1960 corridor” in northeast Harris County and includes the central third of Baytown, is “about 50 percent new” to him.
“I’ll get to know it, whatever happens,” he said.
Lampson said he felt that the Republican-drawn redistricting map was intentionally drawn to weaken representation of the state’s non-metropolitan areas.
Many of the new districts “radiate” out from the large cities, pairing suburban areas with far-flung rural areas.
The effect of this, he said, is that the new districts “break up a lot of communities of interest.”
Lampson then talked about several of the issues he has been involved in since he first entered Congress in 1996. A member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Committee on Science, he said he was committed to addressing issues of infrastructure, “those things that give us the ability to grow our economy.”
Last but not least: from Roll Call, a look at some potential future standard-bearers in Texas.
At the top of that list is Hispanic state Rep. Richard Raymond (D), who from his seat on the House Redistricting Committee emerged as the chief antagonist to state House Speaker Tom Craddick (R) during the remapping.Raymond was one of more than 50 state House Democrats to flee the state for Oklahoma during the Texas legislative session to deny Republicans a quorum, a maneuver that blocked passage of the redistricting bill. The group later became known as the "Killer Ds."
After a federal court finally OK'd the map, Raymond called it a "gross injustice and a slap in the face to minority voters." The Supreme Court announced Monday that it would not hear further challenges to the map.
Raymond represents part of Webb County and lives in Laredo. His 42nd state House district is overwhelmingly Hispanic.
That area is within the boundaries of the 28th Congressional district, where former Texas Secretary of State Henry Cuellar (D) defeated Rep. Ciro Rodriguez (D) in the March 9 primary by just more than 200 votes.
Rodriguez has since filed suit, alleging that the discovery of more than 400 untallied ballots in the recount defies logic.
To the north of Raymond's Laredo-based district lies Bexar County, which is dominated by San Antonio.
That area has long been the political base of state Sen. Leticia Van De Putte, who held a San Antonio-based state
House seat from 1990 to 1998 when she was elected to the Senate. She is now chairwoman of the state's Senate Democratic Caucus.
Van De Putte was the instigator of a walkout by Senate Democrats during the second special session of the Legislature in order to keep the redistricting bill from passing. The 11 Senate Democrats bunkered in New Mexico.
She also told a local newspaper that a Republican state Senator had said "if you're going to act like Mexicans, we're going to treat you like Mexicans" in regard to the redistricting fight.
All 19 Republican state Senators denied making the remark and Van De Putte retracted the accusation, though she has never denied its veracity.
Van De Putte revealed last fall that she is suffering from a thyroid disorder related to Hashimoto's disease but insists it will not interfere with her political career.
Another Hispanic legislator seen as an up-and-comer is state Rep. Pete Gallego (D), who is the chairman of the Mexican American Legislative Caucus.
Gallego represents 13 counties in West Texas; most of that territory is located in Rep. Henry Bonilla's (R) 23rd district.
Bonilla was seriously challenged in 2002 by Cuellar but won that race by 5 percent.
Republican redistricters took the Democratic bastion of Laredo out of Bonilla's district thereby reducing the Hispanic population by 12 percent.
There appears to be little room for upward mobility elsewhere in the state as Democratic incumbents scrap to simply keep their heads above water.
Those not directly endangered by the Republican redraw seem unlikely to leave Congress in the near future.
The only Democratic incumbent seen as a potential retirement in the next few cycles is Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D).
The Dallas-area Member will turn 69 on Dec. 3.
The likely heir to Johnson's majority minority 20th district is black state Sen. Royce West (D).
West has held a state Senate seat since 1992 and played a high-profile role as a member of the loyal opposition in redistricting.
Perhaps more important than the Democratic politicians who gained notoriety during redistricting were those pushed out of office by the new map.
Leading that list is Rep. Jim Turner, who will retire at the end of the 108th Congress after the remapping split his East Texas 2nd district into six separate Congressional seats.
Turner has stated publicly that he will run statewide in the near future with both a gubernatorial or Senate run seen as options.
Turner's decision likely depends on whether Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R) challenges Gov. Rick Perry (R) in a 2006 primary.
If she does make that leap, state and national Democrats expect Turner to run for the open Senate seat.
Another name mentioned in an open-seat scenario is freshman Rep. Chris Bell (D).
Bell was crushed in the March primary by former Houston Justice of the Peace Al Green (D) in the 9th district, which took in significant new population. Green is now all but certain to join the 109th Congress.
Bell ran for Houston mayor in 2001 before winning the open seat of retiring Rep. Ken Bentsen (D) in 2002.
Other Democratic names mentioned for a statewide run down the line include Bentsen, now a Houston-area lawyer, and former Austin Mayor Kirk Watson. Watson served as mayor of the state capital from 1997 until 2001; he resigned that post to run for state attorney general in 2002 but lost.
Watson is now the chairman of the Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce.
Thanks to JD for the info on that last excerpt.
Ralph Nader isn't on any state's ballot yet, but he's still trying.
Texas has the earliest deadline and some of the toughest requirements to secure a place on the ballot. Nader supporters have until May 4 to collect 64,000 signatures.Nader backers are hoping a strong showing in Texas, with the symbolism of accomplishment in Bush's home state, will boost his chances elsewhere.
"We have hundreds of people out collecting in Texas," said Jason Kafoury, Nader ballot access coordinator for the state. "It's a whole, wide variety of people, including many who have not been active in politics before."
If this is anything like the process to get on a primary ballot, he really needs about double that amount to ensure that he doesn't get tripped up by double-signers, ineligible voters, and so on. That'd be 128,000 signatures. For the record, Nader got 137,994 votes overall in Texas in 2000. Lotsa luck, fellas. Oh, and by all means, keep calling good Democrats like Byron for assistance. I'm sure they'll all do what they can for you.
This is a really long post rounding up news stories about the just-begun special session. I didn't feel like taking up all of the front page, so click on the More link to wade through it all.
Everyone should be up in Austin for that long-awaited and much-dreaded special session on school finance reform. The official proclamation is here (PDF), in case you were curious. Note, however, that no legislation has been filed yet. From that AP story:
[O]n the eve of the session, no lawmaker in either chamber had filed a bill carrying Perry's plan and support seemed scarce for his "constitutionally linked" tax, which divides residential from business property.[...]
House Public Education Chairman Kent Grusendorf has filed several "shell bills," used as placeholders for legislation. But [House Speaker Tom] Craddick said details of the House legislation would be hammered out in committee, which is tentatively expected to gather upon adjournment of Tuesday's session.
Comptroller Strayhorn, naturally, wasted no time in blasting the Governor's proposals yet again.
Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn on Monday delivered a scathing review of Gov. Rick Perry's school finance proposal, saying it would create a $10 billion deficit within five years and provide little property tax relief.Just one day before lawmakers convene a 30-day special session on school finance, Strayhorn likened the governor's plan to a "balloon payment" that Texas children "will be paying for the rest of their lives."
"This governor's plan replaces Robin Hood with Robbin' Everybody," Strayhorn said in probably her most pointed attack on Perry's policies so far.
Much of the difference between hers and Perry's figures, Strayhorn said, stems from the governor's use of an inflated figure for the average value of a Texas home. She said the actual average appraised value is $97,000. The governor's office, she said, used $167,000, which is based on real estate sales, not all appraisals.
Someone somewhere proposed making it a requirement to disclose the purchase price of a house, presumably to ensure that its property tax appraisal could match it more closely. I don't think it was Perry who proposed that, but to be fair, there's no reason he couldn't endorse such an idea. If so, that would close at least some of that gap.
UPDATE: Kevin says the purchase price disclosure is indeed part of Perry's plan. We'll see if he pushes it.
Strayhorn, the state's official revenue estimator, gave her assessment of Perry's plan in a letter to the governor, lieutenant governor and speaker. She later expanded on her criticisms at a news conference.Strayhorn said the governor's plan would save the average homeowner $204 a year in property taxes -- less than half of the $418 annual savings projected by Perry -- and increase property taxes for businesses in 203 of the state's 1,000-plus school districts.
Nobody would see property tax relief until December 2005, only a few months before the governor faces GOP voters, she said.
What's more, Strayhorn added, the plan, on average, would increase education spending by $10 per student in 2006 and $53 in 2007, far short of the $375 per student that the governor's office has estimated.
More than 60 percent of school districts -- including the Houston Independent School District and other major, urban districts -- would not get any additional money under Perry's plan, the comptroller said. A handful of wealthy, primarily residential districts -- including Highland Park in Dallas, Alamo Heights in San Antonio and Eanes in Austin -- would see significant funding boosts, she added, perpetuating inequality.
"This plan fails our taxpayers and fails our Texas schoolchildren," Strayhorn said. "This plan does not work financially."
Walt said that Strayhorn's projections have been wrong in the past. Shortly before the 2003 session, she doubled her revenue shortfall estimate from $5 billion to $10 billion.
"Her doomsday projections appear to be based on fuzzy math," Walt said.
It's certainly true that Strayhorn has not always been a shining example of good prognostication. I've swatted her several times for that. Not that I expect the Governor's numbers to bear a close resemblance to reality, mind you. You'll have to decide for yourself who is the smallest prevaricator.
And of course, for those looking ahead two years, there's this.
Strayhorn said she could not resist noting that the "modest property tax relief" promised in Perry's plan would kick in in December 2005.That, she noted, "is a little less than three months before this governor runs for re-elect, and some of you have even speculated that that might be a contested primary."
Doesn't sound like a potential party-switcher there, but you never know.
And speaking of getting an early start on things.
Legislators are not scheduled to convene on taxes and education until Tuesday, but a shifting group of about a dozen House members has huddled secretively for weeks on how to change the way Texas funds and manages schools — or at least how to launch a plan."Our spider hole has been discovered," one participant kidded after a reporter peeked in.
Rep. Kent Grusendorf, R-Arlington, who has led the gatherings of Republican leaders and a few Democrats in an office building near the Capitol, called the group "Kent's Kids Brigade."
He said, "A few of us are trying to get a head start" toward reaching common ground bolstering education while cutting school property taxes and dismantling the "Robin Hood" system, which requires property-rich schools to share with others.
Most participants already serve on the 29-member House Select Committee on Public School Finance, which likely will be entrusted with developing the first House draft of a funding plan.
And many also serve on the Joint Select Committee on Public School Finance, scheduled to hear Gov. Rick Perry and others today address Perry's finance proposal.
Grusendorf said he has avoided having more than 14 members in the room to keep the "brigade" from having a quorum of select committee members. If that happened, the meetings would have to be public and posted in advance to comply with open government laws.
Visitors, aside from expert staff, have included Mike Toomey, Perry's chief of staff, and David Thompson, the Houston lawyer representing hundreds of school districts challenging the adequacy of school funding in a lawsuit scheduled for trial in July.
I've had my doubts about any real solution coming out of this session, and I'm not alone. For one thing, pretty much everyone who's been through a special session on education thinks this one is doomed to fail.
[Former Senator Bill] Ratliff ushered through most of the major education bills over the past 15 years and served two years as interim lieutenant governor."The last time I counted, of the 180 members of the Legislature, 110 had never been through a school-finance battle," he said.
He said it is the toughest subject debated in the Capitol and that members will vote yes or no based solely on how their school districts fare under a plan, withstanding any amount of political arm-twisting to the contrary.
"There's the expression that all politics is local. Well, there's nothing more local than whether your school district got the shaft," Mr. Ratliff said.
One likely casualty will be all those anti tax pledges that many Republicans took before the 2002 elections.
Signing anti-tax pledges has come as naturally for many Republican legislative candidates in recent years as vowing to get rid of the "Robin Hood" school finance law.The two priorities, however, were on a collision course from the beginning, and the moment of impact may be just around the corner as lawmakers return to Austin on Tuesday for a special session on education funding.
Even Gov. Rick Perry, who hates the thought of raising taxes so much that he forced cuts last year in health care and other vital services, admits now that some state taxes are going to have to be increased if Robin Hood is to be banished.
Some 30 Republican legislators, including House Speaker Tom Craddick, have signed -- at some point in their careers -- an anti-tax pledge promoted by the Washington-based Americans for Tax Reform, a leading proponent of making government smaller.
They vowed, in writing, to "oppose any and all efforts to increase taxes."
Now several, including Craddick, are hedging. Their top goal, they explain, is to lower local school property taxes -- which now pay for about 60 percent of education costs -- and if that requires a tradeoff of higher state taxes, so be it.
Just as long as the switch is "revenue-neutral," or doesn't raise the overall tax load, they say.
In other words, they're OK with raising some people's taxes. You can guess who those people will be.
Finally, we have yet another advocate for a state income tax.
When Gary Bridges compiled information some months ago for the Economic Development Foundation, the state's taxation system and the state of Texas' roads, bridges and educational attainment weren't exactly balanced.On one hand, Texas ranked 45th among states for fiscal stability and 46th for tax fairness, according to the Corporation for Economic Development think tank.
That's because the state relies most heavily on property taxes — 72.4 percent — and sales taxes — 22.3 percent — for its revenues, with zero personal income taxes and a loophole-ridden franchise tax system instead of a corporate tax on earnings.
On the other hand, 27 percent of Texas roads are in poor or mediocre condition, and 22 percent of its bridges are structurally deficient or obsolete, according to the Federal Highway Administration.
Bridges — an assistant dean at UTSA's College of Science with a solid economic development background — realized that wasn't a pretty picture. Relocation executives look at taxation balance when they're choosing new sites for their businesses.
"These roads and bridges are our access to markets and supplies," Bridges said. "We need to keep them in good repair and make improvements. But in times of economic duress, the state has few options."
He came to this conclusion when preparing materials for an EDF report titled "What It Takes to Win," commissioned by the foundation to evaluate how San Antonio stands up to other selected cities in competition for business expansions and relocations.
"Is it really a matter of pride to be one of only seven states without a state income tax and one of only four states without a corporate income tax?" he asked rhetorically. "When does that turn into a huge liability?"
Bridges has a point worth considering. If the absence of a state income tax is such a big deal, nearly all business expansions and relocations should be pouring into the seven states, especially Texas.
That isn't happening. Therefore, it probably is not a crucial site-selection factor.
"I never heard Toyota say anything about it," Bridges said.
He should know. Bridges, a certified public accountant, did the economic impact report for the city on the big return on city and state incentives when Toyota announced in February 2003 it would build an assembly plant here.
You all know where I stand on that issue.
Well, the battles are about to be joined. Let's see what the next 30 days brings. If it's anything beyond a call for another 30 days, I'll be surprised.
I know, that's not exactly the kind of headline to make you swoon with anticipation, but in this case we are talking about a couple of DeLay cronies and the millions of dollars they've apparently bilked from various Indian tribes.
The FBI and a U.S. Senate committee are investigating the possible misuse of $14 million paid by a wealthy Michigan Indian tribe to two Washington firms to try to influence legislation in Lansing and Washington.Investigators are trying to determine whether anyone benefited personally from the lobbying and public relations contracts or whether the money was squandered with little benefit to the Saginaw Chippewa Indian tribe.
New leaders of the tribe cut off the contracts when they were elected in December, turned over documents to Senate investigators and talked to FBI agents.
The investigators are looking at what well-connected lobbyist Jack Abramoff and public relations firm owner Michael Scanlon did for the money the Saginaw Chippewa Indian tribe paid them beginning in December 2001, U.S. Sen. John McCain told the Free Press in a recent interview.
Investigators also are looking at another $31 million that three other tribes paid the two men's firms in 2001-2003. Like the Saginaw Chippewas, all the tribes own successful casinos.
After revelations surfaced about the payments, Abramoff was forced to resign from his lobbying firm last month.
Michigan lobbyists and pollsters familiar with the tribe's legislative concerns in Lansing said they saw few results from the huge sums of cash the tribe's leaders paid. The money was to stop bills to allow slot machines at race tracks, a major concern of all casino operators in the state.
The new leaders of the Saginaw Chippewas also say they got little for their money.
"No one seems to know what our money was being spent on," Bernie Sprague, the sub-chief of the tribe, said last week. Sprague said he spent more than a year trying to find out where and why the money was spent. What he got was a huge binder with poll results and other binders full of material that came off the Internet. No one has been able to find a political database Scanlon's firm said it produced with the money, Sprague said.
McCain, vice chairman of the Senate's Indian Affairs committee, said the fees were outrageous. The $4.1 million the Saginaw Chippewa tribe paid for lobbying over the two years was more than Wal-Mart ($2.6 million), the world's largest corporation, or General Motors ($4 million), spent on outside lobbyists during the same period, according to federal lobbying records.
It's a long article, and worth reading. It really is hard to see what Scanlon and Abramoff did for all of the money they got.
One thing they advised doing, apparently, was to buy a few elected officials.
The Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana campaigned behind the scenes in an unsuccessful effort to keep the state's last riverboat casino license from going to Lake Charles, according to a published report.The American Press of Lake Charles said Tuesday that it obtained a copy of an internal tribe memo written by Capitol Campaign Strategies, the tribe's public relations firm, that outlined the campaign.
The tribe operates a reservation casino at Kinder, near Lake Charles. In 2001, the state's 15th and final riverboat casino license was granted to Pinnacle Entertainment for a $325 million gambling resort now under construction in Lake Charles.
The Coushattas are one of five tribes being investigated by Congress for excessive spending on lobbyists and public relations. The Coushattas reportedly spent more than $32.4 million on lobbying in about three years.
The American Press said the memo, written by Mike Scanlon of Capitol Campaign Strategies, was sent to the Coushatta's tribal council and Jack Abramoff, the tribe's Washington lobbyist.
The memo recommended that the tribe wage an effort to help "hand-picked candidates" running for the legislature and other state races.
The memo also talked about efforts to prevent a 2001 local option election for the Pinnacle project. Eventually, the project was approved by Calcasieu Parish voters in April 2002.
But, as with everything else, the clients got bupkis in return for their payments. Well, that's not totally true. They got fined eleven grand for their role in creating "Concerned Citizens Against Gaming Expansion".
More background on Jack Abramoff here and here. Thanks to AJ Garcia for the tips.
The Bleacher Guy takes ESPN talking head Stephen A. Smith to task for what he believes is a disingenuous defense of Barry Bonds and his achievements against critics who assail him for alleged steroid use. Says Smith:
It's curious considering that Bonds has been clobbering home runs for years. That he's a 12-time all-star and a six-time National League MVP with a lifetime batting average of .298.Then I think about Mark McGwire - Mr. Andro himself - and suddenly, I'm not curious anymore.
Where was everyone in 1998, when McGwire forgot to stuff the dietary supplement androstenedione in a drawer instead of leaving it out for a reporter to spot? Where was the uproar in the weeks that followed when he was exposed as a steroid user?"
To which the Bleacher Guy responds:
You've got to be kidding. Where was everyone in 1998? For weeks following the revelation of McGwire's use of andro, there was talk of asterisks, accusations of cheating. Talk on sports radio, talk in national columns, and talk in every sports bar from coast to coast. And that was in lieu of the fact that, at that time, androstenedione was not a banned substance under the rules (misguided or not) of Major League Baseball.
I don't know why Bleacher Guy didn't Google for a few links to back up his assertion. Fortunately, I did. Here are the results for "+"Mark McGwire" +andro +asterisk, which yields articles like this, this, this, and more recently, this. So Bleacher Guy wins on a TKO.
But it all got me to thinking about the whole steroid and asterisk issue. And I've got a question: How do we know that steroids made any difference to McGwire? How do we know that they've made a difference for Barry Bonds, assuming he has in fact taken them?
I know that andro, which McGwire has admitted to taking, enables the taker to bulk up. But did you ever see Mark McGwire before he started taking andro? He was already huge and muscular. He wasn't a 98-pound weakling turned into Charles Atlas - he was Charles Atlas' bigger brother from the get-go. Barry Bonds was never that huge, but he was always strong. Do we really believe that 'roids turned a bunch of warning-track fly balls into home runs for them? It could happen, I guess, but all we've got is assumption. I'm not prepared to convict on that.
There's another factor here, which is that while steroids surely increase bulk, bulk is not the only factor in hitting home runs. Can we say for sure that 'roid-induced heft doesn't have a negative impact on bat speed, eyesight, flexibility, reaction time, or any other aspect of batting? I'm not aware of any long-term studies on these effects.
There's a widespread belief that these muscle enhancers must also be performance enhancers, but from where I sit, that's all it is - a belief. You don't have to go back too many years to find a time when being too bulky was considered a bad thing for players.
During the off-season Barry's father, Bobby, a Giants scout, told his son to cut back on his upper-body weightlifting. Bobby felt that Barry was too bulky and his flexibility too limited last season when he hit .262, his lowest average in a decade. Barry heeded his father's advice and in the spring he was again stinging the ball as he had been before his injury-plagued 1999.
So who's right? I don't know, and my point is that neither do all of the moralizers who think records aren't made to be broken. What if some day a study shows that McGwire handicapped himself by taking andro?
Ultimately, I agree with Leigh Montville when he says that no records are accomplished in a lab setting. Everything is a product of its time and place. Mel Ott hit 323 of his 511 homers at the Polo Grounds, where it was all of 257 feet down the right field line. Hack Wilson drove in 191 runs in a season where the entire league batted .303 and four of his teammates had OBPs above .400. And even though Fay Vincent removed Roger Maris' asterisk, as Montville notes, he still played a 162 game schedule in 1961 while the Babe played only 154 games. I'm not willing to tamper with what Bonds and McGwire have done until someone can prove to me that they wouldn't have done it otherwise.
Bleacher Guy link via Off Wing Opinion.
House Speaker Tom Craddick's lawyer says he wasn't a bagman for TRMPAC, though someone in his office may have been.
A lawyer for Speaker Tom Craddick said Monday that his client never personally delivered campaign checks to GOP House candidates on behalf of railroad lobbyists or the Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee.Instead, criminal defense lawyer Roy Minton said, Craddick's campaign workers mailed the checks or sent them by overnight delivery to the Republican campaigns after Union Pacific and the GOP committee sent money to Craddick's Midland office.
"Tom never delivered anything to anybody other than (through) his office," Minton said.
[...]
The explanation, in response to questions from the Austin American-Statesman, contradicts reports from officials with both groups. It also is different from the initial response given by Craddick's press secretary, who never disputed that Craddick delivered the checks but stated that the checks were not delivered in return for votes from House members who elect the speaker.
Craddick's explanation raises as many questions as it answers. For example, why didn't campaign donors just send their checks directly to the candidates, and did Craddick's campaign routinely reroute money from other groups?
"I can't get anybody to admit to me it was going on routinely," Minton said. "I don't think there was any question checks came into the campaign and they sent them back out."
He said he could only speculate on why the Craddick campaign wanted to deliver the money to House candidates: "Someone thought it might have been good for it (the money) to go out from Craddick's office."
Minton said Craddick was so busy toward the end of the 2002 election than he doesn't remember even discussing the $152,000 with his staff.
"My youngest grandchild knows more about it than Tom does," Minton said.
He added that he was unable to find one note or letter from Craddick that would have been included with the redistributed money.
You'd think after all this time, these guys would have their stories straight.
All right, it's time to generate some real controversy around here: Via Norbizness and The Agitator comes this list of the 50 Worst Bands in the history of rock. Naturally, one cannot link to such a thing without offering some opinions of it, so here I go:
1. Dispensing with the preliminaries first: this is one guy's opinion, it's all subjective, you and I have better taste than this jackwad, blah blah blah. People, this is an article in Blender magazine, not an act of Congress. Let's keep a sense of perspective here.
2. Now that we've established the importance of perspective, I can say this: What definition of "rock" is this guy using? I mean, Lee Greenwood, Celine Dion, La Toya Jackson, Yanni - in what hellish universe do these acts count as "rock"? I'm not saying they don't suck - I'm most emphatically not saying they don't suck - but why Lee Greenwood and not Kenny Chesney? Why Celine and Yanni and not John Tesh? I know, I know, one man's opinion, it's all subjective, blah blah blah, but sheesh. Let's at least be consistent about what kind of music we're examining here. Hell, why not do separate lists for the worst country, pop, and Adult Contemporary artists as well? It's not like there'd be a shortage of candidates.
3. All that said, I'm hard pressed to argue with most of the inclusions. I'm just arguing there aren't enough of them - where are Toto, Bryan Adams, The Firm, Billy Ocean, Bad Company, Grand Funk Railroad? Admit it, your teeth started to hurt just reading some of these names. Chris Cross, New Kids On The Block, Billy Ray Cyrus, Leo Sayer, Mister Big...for the love of God, someone make me stop!
4. Ahem. At the risk of embarrassing myself, I will admit to a certain enjoyment of the Alan Parsons Project and pre-1980s Emerson, Lake, and Palmer. I'm not saying these bands aren't worthy of derision, but like game shows and various undignified food products, they're a guilty pleasure and I'm reasonably immune to any verbal abuse about my fondness for them. So sue me.
All right, I'm done. Feel free to gnash your teeth about the overlooked worthies and undeserving targets in the comments.
Via Kevin, I see that there's yet another Republican name being tossed around as a potential challenger to Rick Perry in 2006: Karen Hughes:
Following her impressive performance on NBC's "Meet the Press" April 4, Bush adviser Karen Hughes's friends and supporters in both Washington and Texas started quietly boosting her for governor of Texas in 2006.Gov. Rick Perry, who succeeded to the governorship in 2000 when Gov. George W. Bush became president, has indicated he will seek another term. But Perry has many enemies, and the word in Texas political circles is that Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison could challenge him for the Republican nomination.
Conservative activists do not consider Hughes one of them and are not talking about her for governor. However, Republican insiders who are not fond of either Perry or Hutchison are starting to promote Hughes, a former television journalist who never has run for public office.
This puzzles Kevin:
I'm constantly seeing that "Republican insiders" are not fond of Perry, but they are never named. Whatever his faults, one wonders how GOP "insiders" so dislike a governor who held the line on taxes (see Virginia for the approach he could have taken), who engaged a difficult redistricting battle at some political cost to himself but of definite benefit to the party, and who's pushing property tax reform. I guess that's why I'm just a GOP rambler and not an "insider" eh?
Now, I'm no more of an insider than Kevin, and much less of a Republican, but I am a blogger, so here's a little seat-of-the-pants speculation as to why "Republican insiders" might not like Rick Perry.
1. They just don't. Whoever said this was a rational process? Maybe the "insiders" think he has an annoying laugh, or maybe they're all allergic to Bryl-Creem, or maybe they're all mad because he chose to sit with that slut Janey at lunchtime instead of Cassidy who's been his bestest friend since, like, forever. My point is that pettiness and backstabbing have sunk better politicians than Rick Perry.
2. They're reading the tea leaves, which is to say Perry's generally lousy approval ratings, and are at the least keeping their options open. Polls of Republican voters have shown Perry losing a primary race to Kay Bailey Hutchison, so it's not necessarily just "insiders" who don't much care for him. I suspect you'll learn quite a few names of those "insiders" if KBH announces that she's running for Governor in 2006.
3. Maybe, just maybe, some of them think he's a crappy Governor with misplaced priorities and that all he did last session was push state responsibilities onto cities and counties. I know, I know, the Tooth Fairy is more likely to exist than these hypothetical Republicans, but hey, I said I was speculating.
For what it's worth, I don't believe this theory about Karen Hughes. Maybe if we knew for a fact that Rick Perry was not going to run for reelection in 2006, I could see her explore the possibility. As things stand now, I wouldn't bet on it.
UPDATE: Via Byron, here's one possible "insider" who may not care for Rick Perry: Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst:
Early last year, Gov. Rick Perry, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and House Speaker Tom Craddick called reporters together to talk up legislation on home insurance.The event went smoothly until Dewhurst edged past his colleagues and captured the limelight by forecasting a drop of up to 18 percent in insurance rates.
Perry leaned toward Craddick and whispered, "Open mouth, insert foot."
A few weeks later, Dewhurst failed to arrive for a weekly leadership breakfast with Perry, Craddick and Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn. There had already been an expression of discomfort from Dewhurst over Perry's decision to invite Strayhorn to the meetings.
Perry vowed to send out state troopers to "drag his ass in here."
At the time, the asides circulated as evidence of the unsettled relationship between the leaders and a reminder that even when officials share goals and advantages — such as Republican majorities in the House and Senate — personal relationships can be slippery.
Keep in mind that Dewhurst wanted to run for Senate in 2002 but was convinced to go for the Lite Guv job instead. If KBH really doesn't run for reelection in 2006 (whether she runs for Governor or not), expect both Dewhurst and Perry to vie for that job. That's another scenatrio in which you'll find out who does and doesn't like Rick Perry.
The Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal of one of the lawsuits filed against last year's redistricting.
The Supreme Court refused today to consider if Texas Republicans went too far last year in their strategy to enact new GOP-friendly congressional boundaries.The congressional map that could give Texas Republicans six more seats cleared the state Legislature after months of turmoil and two walkouts by Democrats.
Despite absent Democratic colleagues, Republican Senate leaders were able to get redistricting plans up for votes by bypassing the traditional requirement that two-thirds of the 31 senators had to agree to call up a bill before debates could begin.
The 11 Senate Democrats who had fled Texas for weeks filed a lawsuit arguing that the policy change violated the federal Voting Rights Act, which protects minority voters. They lost in a lower court and asked the Supreme Court to consider the case.
Justices affirmed the lower court finding. The court had also refused earlier this year to block congressional elections under the new map, which Democrats and minority groups argue tramples the rights of Hispanic and black voters.
The case is among multiple appeals at the Supreme Court over the Texas 32-district map, which has been cleared by the Justice Department and upheld by a three-judge federal panel.
[...]
The case is Barrientos v. Texas, 03-756.
To be honest, I've lost track of which lawsuits are still active. At this point, unless Vieth v. Jubelirir makes a whole bunch of Congressional districts nationwide invalid, we're stuck with the boundaries we've got. It's just reality, like it or not, and we need to move forward. Don't get me wrong here - I'm not going to forgive and I'll never forget who did what, but that battle's been fought, and the bad guys won. Let's do better next time.
UPDATE: As Beldar notes, the Supremes affirmed the lower court ruling, which is not the same as refusing to hear a case. I went by the first sentence of the story in composing my opening, so I apologize for the confusion. In any event, rereading the piece jogged my memory on it - this was the claim that suspending the 2/3 rule in the Senate violated the Voting Rights Act. Looking back, I didn't think much of that lawsuit at the time it was filed. The suit in which Democrats allege the map itself violates the Voting Rights Act, which I still believe has merit, has not yet been heard by SCOTUS.
I hate stories like this.
GALAPAGOS ISLANDS, Ecuador -- Armed with spray guns and tanks of herbicide, 15 Ecuadoreans descended into the crater of an inactive volcano to beat back one of the Galapagos Islands' most voracious foes: the blackberry.The first blackberry seedlings were introduced by a farmer a decade ago. But now the thorny thickets are spreading from island to island, crowding out native flora by soaking up water, sunlight and soil nutrients.
"This is one of the most aggressive plants," said fumigator Fernando Correa, as he held up the tip of one branch that had nestled into the ground and was already sprouting roots. "It's out of control."
More than 150 years ago, the singular ecosystem of the Galapagos Islands inspired Charles Darwin to conceive his theory of evolution.
Today, however, rising numbers of human settlers and tourists, overzealous fishermen and the introduction of alien species to the archipelago inspire nothing but angst among environmentalists.
Pigs and dogs brought here by humans eat turtle eggs and compete with endemic animals for food. On one island, 200,000 feral goats gobble nearly everything in their path, forcing park officials to organize hunting trips with helicopter-mounted marksmen.
Overfishing in the Galapagos Marine Reserve, a partially protected area covering 51,000 square miles, is reducing the numbers of shark, lobster, grouper and other sea life. In the past three years, two tankers carrying diesel for tourist boats have run aground, spilling thousands of barrels of fuel into the sea.
Because of high birth rates among residents and the arrival of illegal settlers, the islands' human population has shot up from a few thousand in 1990 to more than 25,000 today. Experts say the population will likely double over the next 20 years.
"That's terrifying," said Howard Snell, director of science at the Charles Darwin Research Station in Puerto Ayora, the largest town on the Galapagos. "More people means less biodiversity."
[...]
The islands' extreme isolation meant that, over millions of years, flora and fauna evolved largely on their own. Nearly all of the reptiles, half of the insects and birds, and a third of the plants have adapted to their ecological niches so well that they bear only a faint resemblance to their mainland cousins.
Of the islands' 5,000 plant and animal species, 1,900 are found only on the Galapagos.
The down side to all of this is that many of these species are fragile and will be quickly threatened by nonnative invaders. A new predator can wipe out a population in short order.
Fishermen are now pressuring the government for permission to use long lines, contraptions that send out multiple, hook-filled filaments that stretch across miles of ocean. Long lines are the scourge of ecologists, because they often hook more birds, sea lions and turtles than targeted fish.To press their demands, fishermen have killed some of the island's famous giant tortoises and kidnapped park workers. In 2000, Ecuadorean special forces had to rescue the Darwin station director after he was chased into a mangrove swamp by irate fishermen, who later ransacked his home and burned park offices.
I want to have sympathy for the fishermen, who are just trying to feed themselves, but they're making it hard for me.
I don't have any good ideas about this. I'm just sad to read about it.
Today is the ninth anniversary of the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma City, a despicable act of terrorism that killed 168 people. This is what I wrote about it two years ago. My thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and their survivors. We must never forget them.
UPDATE: April 19 was a busy day in history - the Shot Heard Round The World in 1775 and the beginning of the Warsaw Uprising in 1943 share this day as well.
You know, if there's going to be a large city in Texas that feels misunderstood and underappreciated by those who don't live there, it may as well be Dallas.
Dallas is going through an identity crisis.With no singular defining characteristic -- no Golden Gate Bridge, no French Quarter, no Space Needle -- the city is stuck with an image that's not only inaccurate, it's badly out of date.
"The perception of Dallas is J.R. Ewing, women with big hair and cowboys. There's certainly much more to Dallas than that," said Phillip Jones, who took over as president and CEO of the Dallas Convention and Visitors Bureau late last year. "My goal is to reintroduce the new Dallas. The way to do that is have an aggressive new branding campaign."
The bureau hired The Richards Group, a nationally known Dallas advertising firm, to craft a new, catchy "brand" that the bureau hopes will bury memories of the prime-time soap and bring back some of what the city lost since the show made it famous -- conventions and tourists.
Dallas was the host of just 10 of the nation's largest 200 trade shows in 2002, down from a high of 22 in 1988, said Adam Schaffer, publisher of Los Angeles-based Tradeshow Week magazine. Las Vegas was the big winner with 35. The Dallas-Fort Worth area was also dropped from a list of "America's Favorite Cities" by Travel and Leisure magazine in March. Adding to that insult, three other Texas cities were featured: Austin, San Antonio and Houston.
Jones said that after he took office, the bureau did a complete analysis of Dallas as a tourist destination and tried to figure out why people were bypassing the nation's eighth-largest city. One of the reasons travelers cited was that there was nothing to see and do in Dallas, another misconception, Jones said.
He said the city needs to do a better job in touting its restaurants, shopping, sporting events and museums.
"We have more four- and five-star restaurants in Dallas than New Orleans, but nobody knows that story," Jones said.
Speaking for everyone in Houston, I feel your pain.
Seriously, there's no doubt in my mind that the TV show "Dallas" warped perceptions about the whole state for generations to come. I'll be damned if I can think of anything to do about it, though.
Happy Birthday to Jack Cluth, Lord High Executioner and Chief Bottle Washer of the People's Republic of Seabrook. Have an age-appropriate amount of fun today, dude.
From the Things I Meant To Mention Earlier This Week But Unaccountably Forgot About department: Greg Greene's boss is running for Congress. Check out her record, and if you like what you see, drop her a few dimes to help her make it to DC and bring Greg with her.
Samuel Johnson once said that patriotism was the last refuge of the scoundrel. Apparently, he lived in a time before partisan politics.
Partisan attacks on the Sept. 11 commission escalated Friday when House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land, said a Democratic commissioner may have to resign because of a conflict of interest.But the head of the commission, former New Jersey Gov. Thomas H. Kean, a Republican, dismissed charges by Republican lawmakers that the commission has become too partisan.
Kean said the Democratic commissioner, Jamie S. Gorelick, has complied with the panel's conflict of interest policy.
Gorelick's role is being questioned because of a memo she wrote in 1995 as deputy attorney general under President Clinton.
The current attorney general, John Ashcroft, told the commission investigating the 2001 terrorist attacks that the memo blocked information-sharing between intelligence and criminal cases. He said the memo was an example of a barrier to preventing the terrorist strikes.
The exchange between DeLay and Kean set the stage for Democrats and Republicans to battle over the integrity of the commission's work when Congress returns to Capitol Hill next week after a two-week recess. The mounting cross-fire threatens the panel's credibility, according to some observers.
"What you have is mounting criticism in Congress that will only get louder and more intense next week," said Stuart Roy, a spokesman for DeLay.
The ratcheting up of political tension over the commission, made up of five Democrats and five Republicans, also was "predictable and strategic," said Allan J. Lichtman, a history professor at American University.
"Normally, you don't have this kind of politics on a commission, but because it's filled with so much import for the presidential election, it's bound to have it," Lichtman said. From the Republicans' standpoint, charges of partisanship help "diffuse whatever criticism -- and there's going to be criticism -- that it has of the administration."
As with the attacks on Travis County DA Ronnie Earle for his investigation into TAB and TRM, this is just pounding on the table by DeLay and his cronies. They have no substantive criticism to offer, so they sling mud.
Kevin Drum says it best:
It's funny that conservatives only started complaining about partisanship when the 9/11 commission started producing testimony damaging to George Bush, isn't it? But where were they when he resisted setting up any kind of commission in the first place? Or when he then tried to make a joke out of it by appointing Henry Kissinger as its head? Or on the repeated occasions when he stonewalled the commission when it requested needed documentation and testimony?Histrionics are not the only sign of partisanship. On the contrary: although preventing an investigation because it might damage you politically is more subtle, it's every bit as partisan. What's more, it's probably more dangerous in the long run, especially when it comes from a commander-in-chief whose party controls every branch of government.
So tell me again who's putting partisanship above patriotism. And his middle initial better be W.
Indeed.
UPDATE: Here's Commissioner Gorelick's response to the accusations levelled against her by Ashcroft, DeLay, et al.
Dewhurst and Perry, not on the same page.
Signaling deep differences on the threshold of a special session, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst said Friday the Senate wants to enact a more comprehensive overhaul of education funding -- including deeper, immediate cuts in school property taxes -- than Gov. Rick Perry has proposed.The two leaders also indicated differences over vouchers, should that subject arise during the session. Perry on Friday refused to rule out the possibility of private-school voucher legislation emerging from the session on school funding. But Dewhurst said vouchers would encounter strong opposition in the Senate.
"I would not block a member bringing it (a voucher bill) up, but I'm not going to let school finance crash on this one issue," Dewhurst said.
Hell, they're not in the same chapter. And what about the third prong of the unholy trinity, Tom Craddick?
Dewhurst said the Senate favors a major tax trade-off that would cut school property taxes to 75 cents per $100 valuation -- half the present cap -- and replace the revenue with a broad-based state tax that would tap Texas' expanding service economy.The Senate unanimously approved a similar bill during last year's session, but the measure died in the House. That bill would have raised the state sales tax and expanded it to many services that are now untaxed.
As a possible alternative to higher sales taxes, Dewhurst said, senators are studying a business tax that would lower the rate of the current franchise tax but expand its coverage to many service industries.
Dewhurst said it would provide for fairer taxation. He said more than two-thirds of the state's service businesses don't pay franchise or sales taxes now.
Perry has said he opposes an expanded business tax because it would discourage job growth.
The Texas Constitution requires that any tax bill originate in the House. Speaker Tom Craddick, R-Midland, has had little public comment on the special session, but he told the Midland Reporter-Telegram on Wednesday that he is considering cutting the basic school property tax to somewhere between 75 cents and $1.
That would put Craddick in close agreement with Dewhurst's ideas for deep property tax cuts.
Strike two, Governor.
I'll say again that I don't endorse the Dewhurst plan, because I don't believe that raising and expanding a non-deductible tax in order to finance a cut in a deductible tax makes good sense. However, Dewhurst at least has the right general idea - any tax that does make sense must be as broad and as shallow as possible. Perry's plan fails on all counts, and it deserves the ignominious defeat that I believe is in store for it.
A few good things for you to read this weekend:
Matt Stoller says Release the blogs! and I'm inclined to agree.
Mark Evanier foresees a day when regular TV viewers will have more choices about when to watch a given program.
You want to talk about plagiarism in newspaper punditry? Julia finds an egregious case in Austin. I guess "fraud" is a more accurate term, but however you slice it, signing your name to someone else's work is just plain wrong.
Slacktivist has some good thoughts on Income Tax Day.
One of the points Matt Stoller made in his piece linked above is that progressives would do well to get some newer, sharper voices out onto the editorial pages, citing William "I've never listened to Air America and I feel very strongly about it" Raspberry and Nick "I've never used Google so as far as I can tell feminists have never said anything about the Third World" Kristof as prime candidates for substitution. Let me be the first to nominate Jesse and Ezra of Pandagon as their replacements. They've both been on fire lately, with these two pieces being evidence in favor.
And while you're at it, add Dwight to that list of Op-Ed Writers I'd Much Rather Be Reading.
Juanita, proprietress of the World's Most Dangerous Beauty Salon, slaps around Tom DeLay as only she can. Via Blah3.
Hope finds a nice article on blogs.
Sue just says no to pet cloning.
Kevin rates our local Happy Talk News programs on Attractiveness versus Intelligence.
Beware, New Orleans. The Fat Guy is coming to town.
Steve Bates sings about hacking Microsoft.
Pete has some thoughts on beer bongs and the Lingerie Football League. I can't comment on the latter, but would you believe I've been contacted by two reporters, one from Austin and one from Fort Worth, to comment on the Beer Bong Ban story? Apparently, they found my original post on the subject, thought it was funny, and hoped I might offer some local color. I thanked them for the compliment but told them I was in Houston. They told me that the New Braunfels City Council is going ahead with this boneheaded idea. I'll check around for new stories on the subject.
Antinome says that the State of Virginia is attempting to ban showers at kids' camps, or something like that.
Mark Cuban smacks around Donald Trump.
Finally, you want a real tinfoil hat conspiracy theory? Try this on for size. Now imagine, as Atrios did, that the allegation in question had been levelled against President Bush.
Jim Capozzola at The Rittenhouse Review has asked for nominations to settle the burning question "Who is the worst actress in the world?" While his list certainly includes some suitable choices, I'm just gobsmacked that no one so far has mentioned Bo Derek or Pia Zadora. Maybe it's a collective case of amnesia, or maybe everyone's too ashamed to admit they've even heard of Bolero and The Lonely Lady, I don't know. Either way, I'll bet Pete could get an entire Film Threat article just on Bad Actresses Of The 1980s. Please, drop Jim a note at rittenhouse_review@yahoo.com and help him out. Let's not let any true worthies go unrecognized.
Remember when we tied yellow ribbons around oak trees in support of the hostages in Iran?
These pictures were taken this morning in downtown Houston. I spotted this yesterday and wanted a closer look. Whatever else one may think about our invasion of Iraq, I know I join all my readers in hoping for the safe return of every American there.
Some mostly good news: Democrats are keeping pace with Republicans in fundraising for this year, at least in many individual races.
Over all, the Republicans held a two-to-one financial advantage over their Democratic rivals through February, according to PoliticalMoneyLine, which tracks campaign finance. The Republican National Committee and its counterparts for the House and Senate raised almost $256 million and had about $70 million on hand. The Democratic committees raised about $115 million and had about $26 million banked."The financial advantage affords us the ability to have a more positive impact as we go forward," said Dan Allen, spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. "It's a matter of how much you have in the bank."
In Florida, which holds an Aug. 31 primary to fill the seat of Senator Bob Graham, a Democrat who is retiring, three leading Democrats raised more than $7.3 million while three leading Republicans raised slightly more than $4 million. In North Carolina, where another Democrat, Senator John Edwards, is stepping down, Erskine Bowles raised $2 million during the quarter, compared with $1.25 million for the Republican challenger, Richard Burr. But Mr. Burr has more money in the bank, $5.7 million to $3.3 million for Mr. Bowles.
South Dakota is shaping up as one of the most expensive races this year, with Senator Tom Daschle, the Democratic leader, raising $2.9 million for the quarter while his Republican challenger, John Thune, generated $2.2 million. Mr. Daschle has an advantage in cash on hand, $5 million to almost $2 million. But with a Democratic Party leader appearing vulnerable, Republicans are expected to pour millions of dollars more into the race.
South Dakota also has an unusually energized House race to fill the seat vacated by Representative Bill Janklow, who stepped down after he was sentenced to 100 days in jail for an auto accident that killed a motorcyclist. Stephanie Herseth, who ran against Mr. Janklow in 2002, raised slightly more than $1 million in the quarter while her Republican rival, State Senator Larry Diedrich, raised $886,000.
Among other House races, two in Texas are already demonstrating major donor interest because they match incumbents through redistricting. In one, Pete Sessions, a four-term Republican, raised $950,000, almost twice as much as his Democratic opponent, Martin Frost, a 13-term Democrat. In the other, Randy Neugebauer, a freshman Republican, pulled in $275,000 compared with $245,000 for his 13-term Democratic opponent, Charles W. Stenholm.
Link via The Stakeholder, which thinks the NYT story understates the Dems' success.
More info from the daily Congressional briefing passed along to me in email from reader JD:
Democratic Rep. Nick Lampson reported raising $335,000, which included a $70,000 bank loan balance, and had $490,000 on hand. His GOP challenger, Ted Poe, raised $95,000 and had $35,000 on hand. Democratic Reps. Max Sandlin and Chet Edwards padded their warchests as Republicans nominated their challengers in Tuesday's runoffs. Sandlin raised $200,000 and had $375,000 on hand, while GOP nominee Louis Gohmert had $120,000 on hand March 31. Edwards collected $465,000 and saved $815,000 for his race against GOP state Rep. Arlene Wohlgemuth, who had $50,000 on hand.A Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokesman said the 18 vulnerable Democrats in its Frontline program ended the quarter with an average $632,000 on hand, and raised $911,000 in the cycle overall. According to numbers compiled by FECInfo's PoliticalMoneyLine, at least 10 incumbents mentioned as targets by the other party posted campaign balances of at least $1 million. In addition to Sessions and Frost, the list includes Republican Reps. Bob Beauprez of Colorado, Phil Gingrey of Georgia, Anne Northup of Kentucky and Jim Saxton of New Jersey, and Democratic Reps. Shelley Berkley of Nevada, Rick Boucher of Virginia, Darlene Hooley and David Wu of Oregon, and Jay Inslee of Washington.
In the Presidential race, Liberal Oasis notes that grassroots fundraising has had a good effect for John Kerry.
Earlier this week, the NY Times reported that a major Silicon Valley businessman, a Dem donor, is turning his back on Kerry and the Dems this year.Why? Because the Dem position to minimize the outsourcing of American jobs would hurt his bottom line.
What you don't hear right now is the giant sucking sound of Dems kissing this guy's ass.
Because Kerry is raising so much money from the grassroots, he doesn't have to kow-tow to this rich guy's concerns.
That means the $100 Revolution is working.
That would be the plan to get a modest donation from as many people as possible. It's basically cribbed from the Dean campaign, but hey, it's working so far. I've made my contribution, so be sure to make yours.
I suppose one could say that MeMo, the latest attempt at "blogging" by the Chron, is a step in the right direction in that this effort, unlike earlier ones, actually has a separate link to each day's entry and a sorta-kinda blogroll on its own page. As for the cutesy no-capital-letter style and the numbered-list indicidual entries, well, degustibus non disputandem est and all that.
But for crying out loud, if the Chron is going to have a features writer blog, THIS IS A JOB FOR KEN HOFFMAN, DAMMIT! He'd be a total natural at it, and maybe, just maybe, he'd be hip enough with this "Internet" thing to want his "blog" to be in a style that's actually recognized as a blog. I swear, it really is to weep sometimes.
Thanks to Jack for the catch.
Great minds think alike - I had exactly the same reaction upon reading this op-ed by Rep. Chris Bell as Greg did, which is to say that it's the opening shot in Bell's 2006 run for statewide office. He's going to have to talk to Jim Turner and maybe a few other people about who's going to run for what, but there should be no shortage of opportunities, especially if KBH retires and/or Carole Keeton Strayhorn decides to aim for the Governor's mansion.
For what it's worth, I think Perry has a good chance of being beatable in '06. I know he's sworn to keep the Lege in Austin until they come up with a school finance reform plan he likes, but I don't think he'll benefit from another endless legislative summer. He's got no goodwill to cash in on, and the long knives will be out for him. Never mind the Democrats, who have no incentive at all right now to play ball with him, and never mind the newspaper editorial boards, which will be riffling through their thesauri in search of synonyms to "weak" and "uninspiring", Perry will face a lot of criticism from fellow Republicans if this gets drawn out. We all know about Strayhorn, who will be a fixture on the evening news with her latest jab at the Goivernor, but there'll also be David Dewhurst noting for the umpteenth time that the Senate unanimously passed a reform package last year and was eager to begin talks with the House only to have Perry piss on their efforts, and Republicans like Todd Staples from rural areas that benefit from Robin Hood and stand to gain little under Perry's current plan. All this plus the fact that his corporate overlords hate his split tax roll idea. Sure, if Perry gets everything he wants in short order he'll be a hero, but right now I'd wager heavily on "goat". He needs a big parlay to come home for him, and I don't see it happening.
Anyway. Go read the op-ed piece, which Greg quoted in full, and see how often some of the points Bell has made come up during the next few weeks. This could get ugly.
Having entered the (for me) uncharted waters of winning a game on Tuesday, we kept on plunging forward by embarking on a winning streak - the Twins defeated the Marlins 9-2 last night for the second straight victory and a 2-1 record overall. Even better, Tiffany was there to see it, so now she's experienced the thrill of victory with me. The Twins get a rematch against the Cardinals tomorrow, who beat them easily on Opening Day. They'll have to take them on without me, though, as Tiffany and I will be attending an orientation at the hospital where the baby will be born.
The old saw about pitching being some monumentally large portion of winning baseball is fairly accurate in Little League, especially in a division like ours, where the kids are pitching for the first time. Despite scoring 18 runs in the last two games, we really haven't hit the ball all that much. A lot of our rallies have been based on walks and wild pitches. Conversely, our hurlers have been outstanding this week, with far more strikeouts than walks and good control overall that's kept the opponents' running game in check.
The new field itself is a factor in all this. Our practice field, which is where the games were played last year, had no outfield fences and a backstop that was very close to home plate. The new field has real fences (170 feet down the lines on our field, 175 to dead center) and a much more distant backstop. No one has hit a home run yet, but several balls that were hit between or over the outfield that would have been home runs last year wound up as triples because the fence enabled the defense to get to them in time. Sinilarly, quite a few runners have scored from third on wild pitches where last year they probably wouldn't have tried.
Last night's game could have been even less close, as we had one runner thrown out at home after a wild pitch (I thought he was safe, but it was very close) and another called out due to obstruction, as the batter failed to get out of the batter's box while the catcher was retrieving the ball and throwing it to the pitcher. Actually, as there were two outs in the inning, the umpire correctly ruled that the batter, not the runner, was out. This had no practical effect, since it was what turned out to be our last at-bat, but it gave me confidence in the umpire's abilities. One of the underappreciated pleasures of Little League is the opportunity to visit some of the more obscure areas of the rule book.
We turned another double play, this one to end the game, last night. With a runner on second, the batter hit a soft line drive that was caught by the pitcher. The runner, who clearly didn't fully understand the rule about tagging up, was going on contact and steamed into third while our pitcher tossed the ball to the second baseman for the last out. Overall, our defense was as good this game as the last one, which also helped us a lot.
Two in a row! Break up the Twins!
Be very, very skeptical when you see politicians push ideas like this.
Now that the dreaded deadline is past and the tax forms are in the mail, consider this question: Would you rather slog through a morass of paperwork every April to send Uncle Sam a chunk of your income or have the sales clerk take 23 cents in tax out of every dollar you spend?U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land, and Republican U.S. Reps. Kevin Brady and John Culberson chose the perfect downtown stage Thursday to promote the second choice, which they call the FairTax.
As about 100 supporters, most of them members of the group Americans for Fair Taxation, rallied outside the Main Post Office at 401 Franklin, a steady stream of cars and trucks rolled through the driveway to drop off last-day tax returns.
Also on hand was Rep. John Linder, R-Georgia, sponsor of the FairTax bill, HR25. Linder said the campaign for the proposal, technically a consumption tax on retail sales, was launched in Houston by businessmen, including Leo Linbeck and Bob McNair.
Linder said Culberson's predecessor, Bill Archer, supported the idea, which has gotten a big boost with DeLay on board.
"Now it's time for Texans to get the president behind the bill," he said.
DeLay described the Internal Revenue Code as "a 1.6-million-word, job-killing monstrosity ... written by tax lawyers to be incomprehensible."
The FairTax would not only be simpler, he said, but also would replace the personal income tax, corporate income tax, capital gains tax, inheritance and gift taxes and Social Security-Medicare taxes.
It would not replace state and local sales taxes, however.
So what's wrong with this? Let's count the ways.
Skeptics note, however, that a rich man's purchase of a yacht and a widow's winter coat would both be taxed at the same rate -- about 23 percent at current federal revenue levels.Food and medicine would be taxed, too. The only purchases exempted would be used goods, business expenses and the costs of education, which would be treated as an investment.
To ease the burden on the poor, each family -- rich or poor -- would get rebates equal to the federally defined poverty-level income, multiplied by the tax rate. At a rate of 23 cents per dollar, a single person living alone would receive $160 a month and a family of four with two children would get $431 a month.
Joe Barnes, a research fellow at Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy, said junking the income tax for a simpler alternative is a tempting idea fraught with unknown consequences.
"I'm very sympathetic to consumption-based taxation, but I have profound misgivings about its workability," Barnes said.
For one thing, he said, experience in Europe indicates that when similar taxes climb to about 20 percent, cheating becomes widespread. Because an enforcement mechanism will be needed, he said, "It will not lead to the abolition of the IRS."
"I think it would lead to gigantic off-balance-sheet transactions," Barnes said.
The tax would seldom be paid on personal services, he predicted, and there would be temptations to falsely claim purchases as business expenses.
Barnes said there also would be intense political pressure to exempt some expenses, such as medical care, food and housing, from the tax. For every exemption, he noted, the tax rate on other goods must increase to maintain the same revenue.
So let's see: Would be extremely regressive, would strongly encourage cheating and thus would require a large bureaucracy much like the hated IRS to enforce it, and would still be subject to political pressure to favor one type of transaction over another. Yeah, that sounds like a winner to me.
UPDATE: Kevin Drum makes some very similar points plus a few that I didn't think of.
One liner of the day, from Joe Sheehan of the Baseball Prospectus:
One week of baseball games, no matter the month, are a bit like Jessica Simpson. Beautiful to look at, and impossible to get any useful information from.
Whoever said that reality television has contributed nothing to the public discourse?
I was too lazy to round up some stories on the long awaited and much dreaded special session on school finance reform from yesterday, but at least I bookmarked the relevant URLs. So let's look at them now.
Houston's school districts are unsure about the effects of the Perry plan on their finances.
"To have a permanent solution is going to require a stable source of revenue over time," said Bill Carpenter, assistant superintendent for governmental relations with the Houston Independent School District."Some of the suggestions that have been made do not appear to be something that you can pin on for the long haul. The sin taxes would be one thing."
Boy, where have I heard that before?
Spring Branch Superintendent Yvonne Katz said more than half of the students qualified for free or reduced lunch and another third were in bilingual or English as a second language programs.As part of the current funding formula known as "Robin Hood," where more wealthy schools must contribute to those less wealthy, Spring Branch must pay $11 million next year to Laredo ISD.
"We can use those dollars to help our own children, who through no fault of their own have to face the challenges of coming to a new country," said Katz, whose district has joined others in a lawsuit seeking to force an overhaul of the system.
David Thompson is one of two lead attorneys representing those districts, which include Katy, Cy-Fair, Spring and Humble.
Thompson said the districts he represents are skeptical of proposals that would tie some funding to performance, an idea that Perry has floated.
"Am I going to give this year's kids less money because of something that happened on that campus two years ago when they weren't there and maybe their principal wasn't there?" Thompson said.
Legislators must come up with a plan that gives some property tax relief but also increases school funding across the board, said HISD trustee Harvin Moore.
"What voters have to focus on now is letting it be known that they're not just looking for a session," Moore said. "They're looking for a solution."
So far, only school finance is on the agenda. Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn says the Governor ought to add CHIP money back now that he has the chance.
Minutes after Perry announced he was calling the Legislature back to Austin on April 20 for a special session on school finance, Strayhorn's office delivered a letter asking the governor to also put funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program on the session's agenda."This is not about politics -- this is about saving lives," wrote Strayhorn, who is believed to be considering a re-election challenge of Perry in the 2006 Republican primary.
About 119,000 children have been dropped from the health-care program for the working poor since September because of budget cuts enacted by the Legislature last year, the comptroller said.
She said the governor was "sitting on" $583 million in mostly federal funds that could be used to put thousands of children back on the program.
"You must act now," Strayhorn urged the governor.
I'm sure he'll get right back to you on that, Carole.
What could be worse than a special session on schoo, finance reform? How about multiple special sessions on school finance reform?
Gov. Rick Perry held out the prospect of a long, hot debate through early summer as he announced that he will call lawmakers into special session on school finance and taxes next Tuesday."I can't promise our work will be done in one session, or two or three," Perry warned at a Capitol news conference on Tuesday. "But I can promise this: We won't fail simply because we refused to try."
Special sessions are limited to 30 days each, but governors can call as many as they deem to be politically feasible.
Perry vowed, "We will stay until it gets fixed."
Perry has been tootling around the state promoting his plan now that it's finally been made public. Here he was in Sugar Land, home of Tom DeLay.
"I've got a plan that will immediately cut property taxes, will give schools the most equitable system they've ever had and supply substantial new dollars into our classrooms," he said at Dulles Middle School in Sugar Land, a southwest Houston suburb in the Fort Bend Independent School District.[...]
Betty Baitland, Fort Bend superintendent, withheld an endorsement of the package, saying she needed to look at the details.
I'm intrigued by that last bit. Sugar Land is the very definition of Republican suburb, which is to say Perry's base of support. If they're not enthusiastic about his plan there, that's got to be trouble for him. Of course, he's really more interested in what the people of Sugar Land who send their kids to private schools think, but still.
Finally, a little preview of how things will go in the Senate from the Express News
House and Senate leaders have not proposed education funding plans this year, though Dewhurst last year led the Senate to approve a plan to cut local school taxes in half and create a statewide property tax and expanded, increased state sales taxes.At the time, Perry and Craddick said action on the topic was premature.
This year, senators have said they intend to wait for a House plan — including politically ticklish tax changes that must originate in the House — before debating changes.
Sen. Leticia Van de Putte of San Antonio, chairwoman of the Senate Democratic Caucus, said her party's senators support more education aid but oppose Perry's split taxation idea. She predicted a "very interesting and intense 30 days."
Sen. Jeff Wentworth, R-San Antonio, credited Perry with "doing the right thing" by calling a session more than three months before a state district judge hears a lawsuit filed by school districts challenging funding adequacy.
"Baby steps will not suffice to fix the problem," an attorney for the suing districts said. "The Legislature will need to come up with a significant amount of new money to cure the constitutional deficiencies in the system."
Lawmakers pulled into session will respond, Wentworth said, adding, "We are procrastinators like everybody else."
Let the games begin.
So it looks the State House could become a more partisan place now that several Democratic legislators were ousted by primary voters for not adequately representing their views. I know, I didn't think that was possible after the three-ring Special Session Circus last year, either.
The defeat of state Reps. Gabi Canales of Alice and Roberto Gutierrez of McAllen brought this year's total of dislodged House Democrats to seven -- including Fort Worth's Glenn Lewis."You could call this the first shot fired in a coordinated strategy to take back the Texas House," said Kelly Fero, a veteran party operative. "And to do that, we need to elect Democrats who not only run as Democrats at election time but vote like Democrats during the legislative session."
Democrats emerged from the 2002 elections as the minority party in the Texas House for the first time since the Reconstruction. Tom Craddick, the new Republican House speaker, installed a new leadership mostly composed of his GOP allies. But he brought several Democratic lawmakers into his inner circle as well
Lewis, a five-term representative from east Fort Worth who was defeated by newcomer Marc Veasey, was named chairman of the County Affairs Committee. State Rep. Ron Wilson, a 26-year House veteran from Houston, was tapped to head the powerful Ways and Means Committee. Rep. Jaime Capello, D-Corpus Christi, chaired the Public Health Committee.
Craddick awarded committee vice chairmanships to Gutierrez and Rep. Timo Garza, D-Eagle Pass.
Canales, a freshman, was not part of Craddick's team but was criticized for using her office to win delays of clients' trials during the 2003 legislative sessions.
[...]
Fero said that after a series of losses in statewide elections dating back to the mid-1990s, and after losing majorities in both state houses in recent years, Democratic voters have a right to expect a more combative and assertive crop of candidates.
"Democrats want to elect candidates who will represent their interests," he said.
On the one hand, I'm very happy with this. It's not mentioned in this article, but Garza and Gutierrez were targeted because of their support of the awful tort "reform" law that was passed last year, while Wilson of course was ousted for his odious support of the DeLay redistricting. If you were to ask me which two issues from last session should no Democrat have compromised on, those would be the two.
This is also a pretty blunt recognition of the reality, which some but not all realized in 2003, that House Democrats are the minority party in the way that Congressional Republicans were before 1994. Bipartisanship and compromise are only good things if they're not just another word for getting rolled. Sometimes all you can do is play defense. You can't advance an agenda if your bills are getting garrotted in committee and all of your amendments die on party-line votes.
Holding one's ground, though, is not generally a winning strategy for regaining a majority. There's also a very real danger of being portrayed as working against the greater good to protect selfish interests, not to mention the possibility that the hardened resolve of the group might lead to hostility towards individuals who don't share the group ideology on enough points. Success will involve convincing people that it's the other guys who are rigid and doctrinaire; confusing feistiness with purity is a recipe for disaster. You've got to tolerate some heresy if you're going to enlarge that tent.
We'll see how effective this is in the short term. Longer term, given the nature of the 2001 Legislative Review Board redistricting of state House districts, I don't expect much to change any time soon, though a Democrat capturing the Governor's office in 2006 (however unlikely that may be) would speed things up a bit. A more realistic goal is to be aim to be in a stronger position by 2010 for the next LRB redraw.
As expected, Rep. Ciro Rodriguez has filed suit to overturn the recount result in the CD28 Democratic primary.
The suit, filed in 341st District Court on Cuellar's home turf, alleges that there is "no ready or plausible explanation" for a dramatic swing in votes in Zapata and Webb counties during a recount of the March 9 election.Rodriguez, who came away with a slim 145-vote victory March 9, saw that lead evaporate into a 203-vote loss after Cuellar picked up a total of 347 net votes in the two South Texas counties in the 11-county recount. While the Rodriguez camp has hinted that fraud may have played a role in the outcome, the five-page lawsuit does not levy any specific allegations.
"We're not going to go into details of what we're going to prove and how we're going to prove it," said Buck Wood, Rodriguez's Austin-based attorney who addressed members of the media today.
The Cuellar campaign immediately seized on the lack of specifics in the lawsuit as an indication that the legal maneuver is baseless.
"While no one welcomes a lawsuit, the Cuellar organization is pleased that now, with today's filing, Congressman Rodriguez and his campaign will have to present hard facts — clear and convincing proof of voter fraud," said Cuellar spokesman T.J. Connolly. "We are confident that there are no facts to back up any of the allegations that the Rodriguez organization has been manufacturing for the past two weeks."
He added: "As Mr. Rodriguez's own attorney stated today, there are no bombshells in their filing with the court. In fact, there is no ammunition in their charges period."
Recount lawsuits generally garner expedited attention, and Wood said he hopes to have a ruling within a month.
As I said before, I have no predictions. Like the Cuellar camp, I look forward to seeing whatever evidence of fraud or other wrongdoing the Rodriguez folks have. Let's get this settled once and for all.
It's time for a Beer Bong Ban Update (original post here).
NEW BRAUNFELS — The City Council has taken the first step toward banning "beer bongs" on the Comal and Guadalupe rivers, instructing City Attorney Charlie Zech to draft an ordinance targeting the drinking devices.Council members have complained that inner-tubers use the bongs — a long hose with a funnel attached — to get drunk as quickly as possible, marring the family-friendly atmosphere the city strives to maintain on the rivers.
Mayor Adam Cork said he has mixed feelings on the issue. Although he would like to keep the devices off the rivers, he does not like limiting individuals' rights. He said he would have to see the details of the ordinance before deciding whether to support it.
"I think everyone on the council wants to make sure it is clear that the river is an open place for families to come," Cork said.
"We want to keep that image, and beer bongs damage that," he said.
[...]
Debate at a meeting Tuesday night focused on a proposed requirement that beverages be drunk from their original factory container. But council members expressed concern that it would prevent people from making iced tea and bringing it along on a river float, or drinking wine, because glass containers already are banned.
(Emphasis mine.) So, like, would that make breast pumps illegal in New Braunfels? This could affect our future vacation plans. Hey, Schlitterbahn Galveston - hurry up already!
The Comal and Guadalupe rivers draw thousands of tourists who float on inner tubes and rafts during the summer.Local officials have pumped hundreds of thousands of dollars a year into law enforcement and trash cleanups in an effort to control rowdy crowds.
Residents have complained of drunken, lewd and violent behavior on the rivers, but officials said the stepped-up law enforcement has had a big effect over the past few years.
I'm remembering some quote about enforcing the laws we already have instead of making new laws. Think that sentiment has ever been expressed in Comal County before?
Councilman Ken Valentine proposed the beer bong ban, saying their disappearance would be another step in the right direction."I'm just trying to make the river experience more positive for everyone," he said.
"Except for those damn dirty college kids," he did not add.
Ginger has a long and thoughtful post about the utility of having comments on one's blog, and how that equation may change if one aspires to something other than amateur status. While I agree that comment threads at some of the high-volume places I read are less worthwhile now than they were before, I don't think that has to be the case, and I don't think one has to be a member of the Nielsen Hayden household to have comment threads which are both heavily used and worth perusing. I do think a certain time investment in enforcing a minimum level of decorum is needed for that, though. I like my comments just fine right now, but I'm also glad I don't have to track them all the time. Should my traffic jump up an order or two some day, I'll have to revisit that - actually, probably well before that time.
(By the way, normally I'd have quoted something from Ginger's post, which I heartily recommend you read in full. Unfortunately, my RoadRunner service is insisting that whiterose.org is still on its old IP address, and so far I've been unable to work around that - yes, I've added the correct addy to my LMHosts file and run nbtstat -R, but it's still in my cache and I don't want to reboot just yet. So I'll just curse AOLTimeWarnerofBorg for now and see what happens when I restart later.)
As I've noted before, I've had some cool things happen in my comments - my current faves are from the video editor of the movie Welcome to North Korea and from a descendent of the man for whom the USS Meredith Victory was named. That helps to balance out what heartburn I've gotten from them. Probably the strangest thing going on deep in the bowels here is on a post about a local right-wing radio talk show host who's been indicted for indecency with a minor, which has turned into a chat room/support group for his fans. (No link, and I won't mention the name here - I get enough Google search results for the guy as it is.) I probably should have closed comments on that a long time ago, but they seem to be harmless enough, and frankly I don't want to bother getting emails from people asking why it's not available any more. Some day after his trial, I'll deal with it.
If you can't get enough comments, there's this nifty Technorati feedback tracker thingy that seems to be all the rage now. I may or may not add it - I have this nagging doubt that it may slow down page loads and/or site rebuilds - but it looks like a cool toy. I suppose if nothing else it'll help you locate referrals from non-Trackback sending blogs, though it seems like you'd have to check each individual post anyway. It's not clear to me how this is a win over the usual Technorati cosmos, but I'm sure someone will come up with a way to aggregate this info in a more compact way. Any feedback you may have on this gadget would be appreciated, and another good reason for having comments.
Leon Hale is a bit confuzzled about a couple of comic strips.
Do you read the Chronicle's funnies? I do, sure, but sometimes I need to have them explained to me.No, I'm not kidding. Some days I just don't get what a comic strip is saying to me.
Give you an example. Do you still have Tuesday's paper in the house? The funnies are in Section D. Now find the Boondocks strip on Page 11.
I've just started reading this feature in the last year, and I've enjoyed those two African-American boys. They're sharp, and they keep up with what's going on in the world.
In Tuesday's strip, one of the kids is at his desk in school. A white girl is sitting at the desk behind him and is saying, "Holla back, Huey! Whoop!! Whoop!! Holla back! Hoooo!! Hoooo!!"
That's it. The boy seems irritated by this, but I don't know why. Explain that one to me.
Then go to Tuesday's Doonesbury. Two college students are shown here. One is at a computer, and he is embarrassed when his friend walks in and sees what's showing on the monitor. Then the friend starts watching, too, and he remarks, "Well, she certainly seems determined." And the guy at the computer responds, "Well, it's a loop, man."
Does that mean anything to you? Is it funny?
Now, I like Leon Hale. He's usually a breath of fresh air and is a distinct voice on the Chron's pages. This, however, is cluelessness on Thom Marshall magnitude.
I thought the meaning of the referenced Boondocks comic was pretty obvious, but if he'd waited another day and checked out today's strip, I think the point would have been clear to him. As for the Doonesbury in question - and it's a rerun, by the way - I fail to see how he fails to see that Jeff is watching a movie. I mean, isn't "loop" a quaint, old-fashioned term referring to a short movie that repeats itself over and over? Hell, usually Hale gets an entire column out of it when he stumbles across an archaic word. What happened here?
Ah, well, maybe he was just having an off day. I can live with that. What he should really be embarrassed about - and I'm not sure which is more shameful - is his later admission that he reads Gil Thorpe and considers the Hocus Focus feature to be a challenge. I know (though I still have a hard time believing) that there are people who actually read comics like Gil Thorpe, but using how he does at Hocus Focus as a barometer of the rest of his day? The mind reels.
UPDATE: This came up in the comments, so I'll mention it here. There's a profile of Aaron McGruder in the New Yorker that's worth a read (link via Mark Evanier). An animated feature of Boondocks is indeed in the works, according to this.
Kevin writes that Rick Casey printed a clarification in his column today regarding his usage of WaPo reporter Dan Morgan's story on Monday. Kevin's not too happy with Casey's explanation, and notes that he never got any kind of response from the Chron's ombudsman, so this seems to be pretty much the end of it from an official perspective.
For what it's worth, my experience with a complaint to the Chron about an author (in this case an op-ed piece writer) misrepresenting himself was no more satisfying. There's no good reason for this, and it's a big part of the reason why our hometown paper is held in such contempt. I'm not saying the Chron needed to agree with Kevin - I still don't fully agree with him - but he's 100% right when he asks "Why have a reader representative if he's not going to act as a real ombudsman who works as a reader's advocate (not to mention defender of journalistic standards)?"
"As the judge remarked the day that he acquitted my Aunt Hortense
To be smut it must be ut-terly
Without redeeming social importance" -- Tom Lehrer
Eugene Volokh takes a look at John Ashcroft's forthcoming War on Smut and projects three possible outcomes, none of which I find to be particularly appealing or a good use of scarce resources. I suppose it is nice to know that the War on Terror is going so swimmingly that we can afford to divert so much time and people power into this effort, though. Via The Agitator.
By the way, if for some odd reason you're not immediately familiar with the Tom Lehrer song whose lyrics I quoted above, well, shame on you. Much as I love the song, his intro to it (this came from a live album) is pretty spot-on:
I do have a cause though. It is obscenity. I'm for it. Unfortunately, the civil liberties types who are fighting this issue have to fight it owing to the nature of the laws as a matter of freedom of speech and stifling of free expression and so on, but we know what's really involved: dirty books are fun. That's all there is to it. But you can't get up in a court and say that I suppose. It's simply a matter of freedom of pleasure, a right which is not guaranteed by the Constitution, unfortunately. Anyway, since people seem to be marching for their causes these days I have here a march for mine.
Amen. Unfortunately, I don't know that he'd be cheering for the Supreme Court if he were to write that song today.
I was all set to start collecting links to round up the runoff results, but Byron's got it totally covered. Start here and click through the "previous" links until you're done.
It's pretty rare for me to care one way or another about a GOP primary race, but I'm glad that the voters of CD10 managed to pick the least insane candidate by electing Mike McCaul. Not that this should stop any of you who live in that godforsaken district from writing in Lorenzo Sadun in November, mind you.
Not a runoff but of interest is that Rep. Ciro Rodriguez is planning to file suit today to challenge the recount results in his race against Henry Cuellar. The deadline for such a challenge is tomorrow. The survivor of that gets to face James Hopson, who won the GOP runoff in CD28.
That sound you heard tonight had nothing to do with the Presidential press conference. That was the sound of the monkey climbing off my back in the wake of the Mustang Twins' first win of the season, a 9-5 triumph over the Astros. My two holdover players and I are officially off the schneid and in the W column.
The game was not without its tense moments. With the score 4-1, the bases loaded and one out in the top of the third, the Astros batter hit a line drive that was snagged by our shortstop, who then stepped on second to double off that runner and end the inning. Call it an omen or call it dumb luck, but both the batter and the shortstop were on my team last year. We upped the lead to 9-1 in the bottom half of the inning, as that same shortstop hit a two-run triple and later scored.
Games are limited to 90 minutes in our league, which basically means that no half-inning can start after that hour and a half have passed. Game time was six PM, and we entered the bottom of the fifth up 9-5 and 7:21 showing on the clock. Had we taken nine minutes to bat, the game would have ended, but we were retired in five. Once the sixth inning begins, the five-run limit is rescinded, so we either had to hold them off or not let them get too far ahead and take our chances at last licks.
The first batter in the top of the sixth grounded out, but the next two reached on a walk and a single. Batter #4 then hit a popup on the first base side of the pitcher's mound. Our hurler, that same shortstop from earlier, got his glove on it but couldn't hold it. He then went for a force at third but the throw was late. I was starting to sweat.
Thankfully, the umpire remembered that this was an infield fly situation, which I had quite forgotten. He called the batter out - the runners were allowed to advance as they had, but I didn't care. We had that magic second out. The next batter hit one back to the box for out number three, and the celebration began.
As anyone who followed through my 0-12 campaign last season can attest, winning or losing any individual game is not what's emphasized at this level. We're all about having fun, learning to play the game properly, and improving over the course of the year. No matter how you handle it, though, losing all the time is tough on the kids. They do try their best, and it's really hard not to get at least some tangible, obvious reward for it. Whatever happens from this point forward, these kids now know that they can win. Learning how to deal with losing in a sportsmanlike and dignified manner is important, but so is learning how to win in a sportsmanlike and dignified manner. Success can breed success, but it can also breed arrogance and a sense of entitlement, and in some ways can be harder to cope with than failure. It's good to experience and learn from both of them.
No time to bask and wallow in it - we play again Thursday and Saturday. We had only one game scheduled last week due to Easter, and it was rained out. Three games a week will be the norm for the rest of the way. We're 1-1 now, and I think we're ready for what comes next. Go Twins!
Ever wonder what kind of fact-checking the major opinion journals have in place? Ted Barlow did, and so he, um, checked it out. The result was a bit unflattering for one particular magazine. Normally, this is where I'd say "check it out", but I think I've beaten that phrase to death here, so let's try "take a look" instead.
Which genius told the President that this was a good time for an all-too-rare news conference?
The networks were scratching their heads Monday after the White House opted to schedule a primetime press conference for 8:30 p.m. ET tonight.If Bush was hoping for a boffo "American Idol" lead-in, he can forget it. Fox -- clearly the most impacted -- quickly decided to bump tonight's live edition of "American Idol," which normally airs Tuesdays at 8 p.m., to a taped version on Wednesday.
"When the President asks for time on the network, the network provides that time," a Fox exec said.
The "American Idol" results show originally skedded for 8 p.m. Wednesday will now be seen Thursday at 8 p.m. -- directly opposite CBS hit "Survivor" and one of the last original episodes of "Friends."
The trouble doesn't end there. Since Bush's press conference is starting at 8:30 -- no one in the TV biz can remember such an odd start time for a White House event -- and isn't expected to wrap until 9:15 p.m., Fox also decided to bump "24," which airs at 9 p.m. Tuesday.
This week's episode of the Kiefer Sutherland starrer will now air Sunday at 9 p.m., against HBO's hit "Sopranos."
Note to self: remember to rejig the TiVo so it records the right thing at the right time. Thank goodness that "The Sopranos" gets rerun nineteen times (approximately 1.4 times per HBO channel) during the week. Via the equally peeved War Liberal.
No turning back now, as Governor Perry has made the call for a special session to start on Tuesday, April 20. (See, I was right that it wouldn't be for the 19th.) What happens from here is anyone's guess, but do keep these things in mind:
The governor has proposed cuts in local school property taxes to be replaced by new state revenue sources, including a higher cigarette tax, video lottery terminals at racetracks and on Indian reservations, a new $5 state tax on admissions to adult entertainment clubs and closing a loophole in the state franchise tax.He also has proposed a new statewide tax on business property that has drawn widespread opposition from the business community, which fears being taxed at a higher rate than residential property. The statewide business tax and the expanded gambling would have tough hills to climb in the Legislature because each would require constitutional amendments approved by two-thirds of the House and the Senate. They also would have to be approved by Texas voters.
Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and much of the Senate, meanwhile, are working on a competing plan, which would trade lower school property taxes for a broad-based business activity tax.
"I don't think there is any consensus at this time," said Bill Hammond, president of the Texas Association of Business, which generally supports the governor on major issues but opposes the statewide business property tax.
Anything that requires a two-thirds vote of the House requires at least 12 Democrats to vote for it. None of them, save for maybe Ron Wilson, will feel any compunction to be accomodating. Same thing in the Senate, where at least two Democrats would have to cross over to a Perry plan instead of a Dewhurst plan. And of course House Speaker Tom Craddick has kept his cards close to his chest. This ought to be a doozy.
From yesterday's Chron: a profile of Chuck D, one of the stars of Air America's lineup. I haven't written about Air America so far because I've not listened to it, something which distinguishes me from William Raspberry. If I don't listen to music in my wall-less cubicle, I'm surely not going to listen to a talk show, and the last time I loaded RealPlayer on my computer at home it installed some other program that hogged up the CPU, so until it comes to an actual by-God radio station here in Houston (and I'm not holding my breath for that), I'll have to rely on what others are saying about it. (Verdict so far: Some people like it, and some people don't. Where else are you gonna go for that kind of incisive analysis?)
Ahem. Shame I won't get to hear what Chuck D is saying, but at least I can read about it. Check it out.
Congrats to Barry Bonds hitting his 660th home run yesterday, tying him with his godfather Willie Mays for third overall in career homers. (Quick trivia question: Who's #5? Here's the answer.) Barring injury or unforeseen dropoff in performance, he ought to be in position to pass Babe Ruth for #2 early next year, and at the rate he's going would catch Hank Aaron in early 2006.
Rob Neyer wonders what all the fuss is about.
Was it a big story on Aug. 9, 1960, when Ted Williams hit his 511th home run, tying Mel Ott for third on the all-time list? Was it a big story on June 23, 1966, when Mays hit his 521st home run, tying Williams for third on the all-time list? Was it a big story in 1972 when Aaron tied Mays for second on the all-time list?Without checking, I would strongly suspect that those were not big national stories. Stories, yes. But not big stories, because the prize has always been first place, either in the majors or (when the leagues were actually separate entities) in the league.
I'm sure he's right, but do I really have to point out that in addition to the fact that there's a lot more media now and the fact that Bonds is the single-season home run king and the glare of the steroids scandal, there's also the family tie between Bonds and Mays? "I'm Number Three!" may not be a standard cheer, but surely it's clear why this is a big story. For me, as a kid I never thought anyone would hit as many as 600 home runs ever again. What Bonds has done is really cool.
On a side note, you might enjoy this appreciation of Willie Mays by rabid Giants fan and fellow Alabaman Tallulah Bankhead. It was penned in 1954, and her attitudes on race are fairly enlightened for but still reflective of that time, but what really comes through is her sheer joy at watching a great player do his thing. Via Steve Smith.
Our long national nightmare of hearing Ben Streusand's voice on the TV as he approves yet another damn advertisement of his really amazingly non-politiciany conservative credentials is finally ending today. There are four other GOP Congressional runoffs plus one for Railroad Commish, and a few Democratic runoffs for state House and Constable Precint 7 here. None of those races are ones I can vote in, so I'm off the hook. You may not be, so check with your County Clerk's website and do your duty if it's there to be done.
Kevin makes a detailed case that hotshot Chron columnist Rick Casey plagiarized this WaPo piece when he wrote this column. It's clear, as Kevin demonstrates, that Casey basically just rewrote the WaPo article. Kevin is also clear that making a charge of plagiarism is a big deal and shouldn't be done lightly. He's certainly persuasive in stating his case.
Still, I'm uncomfortable with it. Casey did say up front that he was taking his column from that story. I think one could reasonably infer that he meant that as a blanket footnote, in which case I'd call him guilty of egregious laziness, which I must say is still a sin for a guy with a three-day-a-week gig on the front page of the Metro section of a major daily. I think what distinguishes him from Mickey Herskowitz, who was suspended for recycling one of his own old columns, was that Herskowitz never mentioned that he was taking the day off. A fine distinction, perhaps, but enough for me to acquit on the first count of the indictment.
Perhaps in some sense, this is a fault of formatting. Had Casey been a blogger, he could've simply given his link, used the "blockquote" tag or somesuch to clearly quote the stuff he wanted, and interjected whatever snarky comments he had in mind when he first read the WaPo piece. All that pretty much gets lost in print.
Again, this doesn't excuse Casey of his slothfulness. Maybe if he did have a daily blog, like Bill Bishop of the Statesman, we'd be fine overlooking the occasional (or even the regular) link-and-quote post, which (let's face it) all of us amateurs do whenever we feel like it. Until then, I do think he at least owes us an explanation why he didn't add a little content to the original piece - surely he could've picked up the phone and asked Phil Gramm what kind of minority he is, or asked Joe Barton for a list of Texans Against Gerrymandering's members. How hard would that have been?
First of all, Kriston Capps has moved Grammar Police off of Blogspot and onto its own MovableType-friendly domain. Among other things, this means he now has a working RSS feed. Update your blogrolls and aggregators accordingly.
I'm more or less at the point where every blog I've blogrolled and which has an RSS feed is now in my list of Bloglines subscriptions. As such, as this more accurately reflects my actual surfing habits now, I've decided to make my subscriptions public. You can find them at the following URL: http://www.bloglines.com/public/kuff. There are still maybe five or so non-RSS blogs out there that I read - basically, if you see it in my blogroll but not in my subs, it has no working RSS feed that I know of. (If you're one of those bloggers, please drop me a note!) There's a couple of people I still need to pester about this. Ultimately, I'd like to retire my Blogrolling account so that there's one less thing for me to keep track of. I may eventually use Bloglines' code to display my subs; we'll see. I may also eventually expand this list, now that I'm feeling like I've finally got it organized in an optimal way.
Steve Bates was kind enough to send along his recipe for do-it-yourself RSS creation for those who don't use an all-in-one blogging package - it's underneath the More link for the curious. The less adventursome can also check out RSSify, but if so please do try to keep it up to date.
Next up on my list of things to try with Bloglines: moving a few email subscriptions over, especially those from my mostly-a-spamtrap Yahoo mailbox.
* Using your browser, visit the RSS feed of just about anyone who uses RSS 0.91 or 0.92 (note: 1.00 will not do; it's not really RSS at all... long story... and 2.00 is rather hard to maintain manually). You may also use a HaloScan comments feed as a starting point; that's what I did.
Recommendation: use my feed as a template.
* View the source. Save it to a file with an .xml extension. If you maintain a local copy of your blog, you might as well save it in that directory, the one you FTP from. For example, the local copy of my feed is c:\webs\stephenbates\yellowdoggereldemocrat\doggerel_feed.xml .
* Modify the obvious things in the header of the .xml file to reflect your own blog.
* Delete all but one of the item entries. In that one entry, replace its elements with those of your own most recent blog post. It is not necessary to use a CDATA enclosures, but if you do so, you may insert HTML tags, including links, in your item entry description, title etc.
* Save the file. Place a page-relative link to it in your main page or template. E.g., mine is something like
There's a free XML button available if you prefer that; it's free, and a lot of people use it. If not, call the link "Syndicate" or "XML" or "RSS" or something that a feed reader will recognize.
* Upload the XML file and the main page with its new link, using FTP or whatever you usually use.
* When you create a new blog post, in your XML feed file, copy-paste an item entry at the top, and modify its title, link and description to whatever you want shown for your new post. If your XML file contains more than about 10 items, delete one off the bottom; there's no point in keeping all the old entries. Then upload your blog page and your XML feed file.
That's about it. As I said, it takes me about a minute to add a new item entry to my RSS feed after I write a new blog post. But if you don't want to mess with even that, you can use RSSify. Its only problem is that, on some Blogger blogs, it incorrectly recognizes the first link in a post (NYT article or whatever) as the permalink for the post itself. The Farmer of corrente is working on trying to find a workaround for that.
Now that Governor Perry has finally unveiled his long-awaited school finance reform plan, when is that long-awaited special session going to be called? He ain't saying, because he's still working on consensus.
From the Bahamas to Houston, the governor has held a series of closed-door meetings with selected members of a key constituency -- the business community -- in pursuit of consensus.The extent of his success, if any, is unknown, even though he announced last week a package of education funding proposals, including cuts in local property taxes and an assortment of new or higher state taxes for the public schools. He has yet to say when -- or if -- he will call lawmakers back to Austin to address his proposals in a special session.
If the main purpose of Perry's private meetings was to win widespread support for a separate statewide property tax on businesses, a key part of his plan, he apparently failed. Opposition to the idea remains strong because business leaders fear they would be singled out for higher school taxes over residential taxpayers.
[...]
The select sessions had about 130 invitees, which the governor's office said included the state's top employers. A number of the governor's major political contributors were among them.
Twenty of the 29 business executives invited to a meeting with Perry last week in Houston had contributed $738,500 to the governor since May 30, 2001. Their contributions were either made individually or through their companies' political action committees.
[...]
One of the first groups to be briefed in private on Perry's proposal to tax business property separately from homes was the leadership of the Texas Association of Business, which played a major role in electing the Legislature's Republican majority.
The group is being investigated by Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle, a Democrat, for spending corporate money for issue ads against several Democratic legislators in 2002. The group denies any wrongdoing.
The association's executive committee was first told of the business property tax plan in January by Mike Toomey, the governor's chief of staff.
Bill Hammond, the association's president, said some of his members have attended subsequent sessions with the governor and other business people in Brownsville, Midland, El Paso, San Antonio, Dallas, Fort Worth and Houston.
"I think they (the meetings) are very important," Hammond said. "I think the governor's made a legitimate decision to sit down with some of the leading employers and get honest feedback."
Hammond joined the leaders of 15 other business groups and trade associations in signing a March 29 letter to legislators, opposing a separation of property taxes levied on businesses from those on homes. But Perry publicly proposed the so-called "split roll" approach anyway last week.
The governor, however, has been cool toward creation of a new, broad-based business activity tax, another major revenue alternative that some legislators would prefer but is opposed by some business people.
Usually when a politician bucks his biggest supporters in pursuit of some piece of legislation, that politician is given credit for courage, or maverickness, or some such. I have a hard time casting Rick Perry in that role because one, I don't believe he's actually going to buck business groups like TAB, and two, even if he does, I don't think he'll be willing or able to push his vision past the objections of TAB's other loyal customers in the Lege.
The Morning News rightly describes all this as a big risk for Perry, with the accompanying big payoff if he wins.
"Rick Perry has been on a two-year slow bleed in terms of his public support, and this is his opportunity to recoup," said Cal Jillson, a political scientist at Southern Methodist University.Mr. Perry says he anticipates calling the Legislature into special session later this month.
School finance is the biggest public policy issue Mr. Perry has faced in his four years as governor and has been an obstacle to previous governors.
"If he can handle the central issue confronting Texas politics – and that's education – there would be a chance for him to recover some prestige and lost momentum," Dr. Jillson said.
To do so, the Republican governor must navigate some treacherous political waters. He faces a lieutenant governor with his own, more ambitious plan; a House speaker reportedly reluctant to tackle the task at all; a Democratic minority still seething over partisan redistricting; and two potential GOP rivals looking to challenge Mr. Perry's re-election should he stumble.
[...]
Austin political consultant Bill Miller says a special session on school finance offers Mr. Perry a political opportunity to tackle a big policy issue and "vanquish all foes."
"The governor feels like he needs to take a step on a major legislative issue," said Mr. Miller, an adviser to House Speaker Tom Craddick. "This is one where as long as he's not advocating higher taxes, he can produce something for his base – suburban Republican voters. And that's a base that comes in handy at election time."
[...]
Some observers see the governor's modest proposal as the mark of a cautious politician looking to score a victory and appeal to his political base.
"He seems to be taking a small-politics approach to a big question," said Mr. Jillson of SMU. "He's not swinging for the fences. He's trying to bunt down the third base line and get to first safely."
Inability to pass a school-finance plan is the fate that befell the governor's predecessors, Democrat Ann Richards and Republican George W. Bush. Both offered ambitious proposals to fix the state's school-finance system and failed.
[...]
Mr. Perry has two problems his predecessors didn't: low approval ratings and a strained atmosphere in Austin.
According to the latest Texas Poll, 50 percent of those surveyed disapprove of the job Mr. Perry is doing – his lowest approval rating as governor. Only 40 percent give him positive marks, the survey indicates.
Analysts say the governor's dwindling ratings stem in part from his decision to call three politically fractious sessions on congressional redistricting.
Democrats say the governor and Republican legislative leaders have squandered the good will of members in the minority party and will have trouble getting bipartisan support for any plan.
"The relationships in the House are anything but good," said Rep. Pete Gallego, D-Alpine. "At every opportunity, they burned bridges instead of building them. And now there are no bridges left."
Mr. Craddick, a Perry ally, has little appetite for a special session on school finance this summer and is having trouble rounding up votes, according to those familiar with the negotiations.
[...]
"I almost can see a shipwreck," said GOP strategist Royal Masset, considering the confluence of obstacles against passage of any plan.
If the Legislature deadlocks, some Democrats say they anticipate the governor will blame them. [Mike] Baselice, the [Governor's] pollster, says there will be plenty of blame to go around for anyone who blocks the governor's plan.
"How would you like to be one of those poor saps who goes home to their voters and says, 'I could have lowered your property taxes but I'm not even going to give you a chance' " to vote on a constitutional amendment, he said.
That's certainly one way to look at it. Problem is, the vast majority of Democratic legislators - who, I might remind you, are all in heavily Democratic districts thanks to the 2001 redistricting - can counter that pretty easily by saying "This plan would have done nothing to improve the schools in this district, and that's why I voted against it". On the statewide level, if Perry fails to deliver after all his promises, that'll be the message of his challengers. He can blame the Democrats all he wants, in which case a challenger could turn it back on him by charging that other governors before Perry were able to work with legislators across the aisle and it's his own fault that he burned those bridges.
Which is another reason why if Perry were serious about school finance reform, he'd have made it a higher priority than redistricting. Democrats have no reason to vote for anything that isn't a slam dunk for them and their constituents. There's no goodwill to draw on - if he needs any support from them, he's going to have to offer real legislative incentives to get it.
Meanwhile, before those affected can truly claim to support or oppose Perry's plan, they need to ensure they understand it first.
Some superintendents have asked consultants to break down the numbers, to help them determine how much more money they would get per student under Perry's plan. Others wonder whether new taxes would really work and whether their districts would benefit from new financial incentives.Much of what's in the plan would be new to Texas: financial rewards for boosting student performance and taxes on adult entertainment, cigarettes and video lottery terminals to partly pay for those rewards.
Perry promises that his ideas would put $3.7 billion into education — $2.5 billion on top of $1.2 billion lawmakers approved last year — an average of $375 more per student.
Educators aren't convinced.
"I guess my question is a dual question," said Richard Middleton, superintendent of the North East School District. "Is it enough, and is there really the money to fund this reliably over the next several years?"
[...]
Some educators say they want a new, equitable system, but Perry's plan is incomplete.
Nothing specifically would help fast-growing districts pay for ongoing expansion, such as a formula that would dole out extra money when districts hit a certain percentage of growth, Middleton said.
The North East district's enrollment, now at 55,000, grows by about 1,700 students a year. Keeping up with that growth can skew a district's annual budget: Adding one portable building costs $100,000, and hiring a new teacher costs at least $36,500.
"We're not convinced yet that (the plan) is going to help fast-growth districts," Middleton said.
[...]
"I think incentives are good things, but you can't base your future funding on incentives alone," said Belinda Pustka, superintendent of the Schertz-Cibolo-Universal City School District. "That's not enough."
I do think we can throw the projected April 19 start date for a special session in the trash. I have a hard time believing at this late date that such short notice wouldn't be a hardship on a lot of legislators. That's just a guess on my part, but I really don't see it happening if there's no call by tomorrow. We'll see.
UPDATE: Perry is once again expected to call that special session, and if so it'll be for "early next week".
The National Republican Congressional Committee has agreed to pay a $280,000 fine for soft-money violations in 1999.
The FEC has entered into a conciliation agreement with the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) resulting from its 1999 transfer of $500,000 in soft money to the U.S. Family Network (USFN) to pay for issue advertisements. The NRCC violated the Act by making the transfer to USFN knowing that USFN planned to transfer at least some of the funds to a third party to pay for issue ads in the 2000 election cycle. As part of the conciliation agreement, the NRCC agreed to pay a $280,000 civil penalty.Under the law in effect at the time, the NRCC was required to pay for issue ads with a minimum of 65% hard money. A party committee could not give nonfederal funds to a third party to pay for such an ad, and could not simply transfer funds to another group to run the ads.
In the fall of 1999, USFN solicited $500,000 in soft money from the NRCC to pay for "media and grassroots." After initially denying these requests, the NRCC donated $500,000 to USFN without following its usual procedures to approve and process large donations. Prior to the donation, Ed Buckham, the founder of USFN, had agreed with Jim Ellis, who was affiliated with Americans for Economic Growth (AEG), that AEG would run radio ads accusing Democrats of planning to raid the Social Security Trust Fund surplus. After receiving the NRCC's $500,000 donation, USFN transferred $300,000 to AEG. AEG then spent approximately $260,000 for two sets of radio ads criticizing Democratic efforts to spend portions of the Social Security surplus on "foreign aid and big government programs."
The NRCC knew through its agents that USFN planned to pass all or part of the $500,000 to a third party to pay for party issue advertisements. Therefore, the NRCC violated the Act by using only soft money to pay for activity that should have been allocated between their hard and soft money accounts.
Roll Call has a little bit more background on this.
News of $500,000 donation, first reported by Roll Call in early December 1999, was loudly criticized at the time by House Democrats.Democrats charged that USFN, AEG and another group, the Republican Majority Issues Committee, were secretly controlled by DeLay and run by his operatives as part of the Texas Republican’s political network. RMIC was going to raise as much as $25 million to help elect GOP candidates and incumbents, but took in only a fraction of that amount before ceasing operations.
“It’s all too rare when DeLay and company are held accountable for their blatantly illegal schemes,” said David Plouffe, the former executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee who filed the original complaint with the FEC. “That they have to pay the fine in all hard dollars for their soft-money shenanigans is all the more satisfying.” Soft-money donations are now illegal under federal law.
DeLay and other senior House Republicans, including Speaker Dennis Hastert (Ill.), were named in the DCCC’s complaint, but they were later dropped from the case. Carl Forti, the NRCC’s communications director, said his committee is pleased the matter is finally resolved.
“It would have cost us twice as much to litigate the case, and the new administration here wanted to just put it behind us and move on,” Forti said. Rep. Tom Reynolds (N.Y.) took over as NRCC chairman from Davis at the beginning of this cycle.
Davis, Buckham and Ellis could not be reached for comment. Buckham is now a lobbyist with the Alexander Strategy Group.
The controversy over the $500,000 donation shed new light on what became known as “DeLay Inc.,” and helped spur the DCCC to file a civil racketeering lawsuit against DeLay in June 2000. That suit was later dropped, but not before DeLay ran up hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal bills defending himself.
As you might imagine, the DCCC is pretty happy about this result.
On a tangential note, the BBC will be airing a special on Bacardi and its longstanding feud with Pernod Ricard over the use of the Havana Club brand name. It'll be interesting to see what they dredge up about DeLay and his role carrying water for Bacardi. I'll have to see if BBCA is showing this so I can TiVo it.
Thanks to AJ Garcia for the links.
D-435 is a project to enlist a Democratic candidate in all races where there's an unopposed Republican. Most of these would be considered longshots of varying extremity based on 2002's returns, but a handful of them are within shouting distance for a decent challenger (CO-4, CT-5, MI-11, and OK-4). As for the truly quixotic challenges, all I can say is that every once in awhile an incumbent Condits himself, and when that happens it's best to have an actual opponent in place to take advantage. No matter how you slice it, some chance of winning is better than no chance.
Sadly, it's too late for Texas, as our filing deadline has long passed. I'm pleased to note that Lorenzo Sadun, the write in candidate from CD-10, now has a web page and is having a series of campaign kickoff events all day tomorrow, starting in Houston at 9 AM and finishing in Austin at 4:30 PM, with stops in Brenham and Giddings along the way. He's even got a blog, so you know he means business. Go get 'em, Professor!
D-435 link via MyDD. The Swing State Project has a few thoughts on this as well.
Has it been 100 days already for Mayor White? The Chron says they've been pretty good days for him so far, and I'm inclined to agree.
Although a few question marks and "incompletes" dot his report card in the early going, council members and political consultants give White high marks as he learns his way around a city government fraught with opportunities for failure.Still, conservatives eye him warily. Some political hands say White benefits from the low expectations created during the administration of predecessor Lee Brown, and city workers say they feel like deer in his gunsights.
"He's managed to keep people who want to be critics at bay," said political consultant Craig Varoga, who has managed four Houston mayoral campaigns. "People have shown him respect, sometimes enthusiastic and sometimes begrudging. But both in content and stylistically, he's done well by any standards."
[...]
Among White's accomplishments, as of Saturday, the 100th day of his administration:
·He brought in an outsider, Harold L. Hurtt, to lead the Houston Police Department as it rebounds from a lingering DNA crime lab scandal and a sharp increase in the number of police shootings in 2003.
·He launched a program to synchronize or sequence traffic lights to ease street congestion.
·He named new city appointees to the Metro board.
·He created an office on mobility.
·He initiated the "safe clear" program to quickly tow stalled or wrecked vehicles off Katy Freeway.
White also has urged cooperative efforts with Harris County and managed, thus far, to maintain the good will of the City Council.
"There's an absence of acrimony at the council table today," said Allen Blakemore, a local Republican political consultant. "White has been a calming influence on City Hall."
[...]
Although acknowledging White's early signs of promise, local political experts also note that he benefited from the contrast between his style and that of his predecessor, Lee Brown.
Although Brown won three terms, he never overcame the negative perception of his first 100 days. The impression that persisted for six years was that Brown was slow to act, lacked a distinct vision and was a poor communicator.
Part of Brown's problem also was the inevitable comparison between him and his action-oriented predecessor, Bob Lanier. Just as Lanier set a standard by which Brown was judged, Brown's image set the bar for White.
White also has enjoyed an extended honeymoon, thanks partly to the completion of some major street projects that had plagued motorists, the Jan. 1 opening of the light rail line and the success of the city's events around Super Bowl XXXVIII.
Even before Brown took office, a faction of seven conservative council members began meeting separately to craft an opposing political agenda. Brown did not counter the opposition.
In contrast, White worked quickly to forge a bipartisan coalition, naming conservatives to lead some high-profile committees.
Granting Mark Ellis the influential Fiscal Affairs Committee post not only gave him a forum for promoting his own ideas, but also put him in a position to help find nonpartisan solutions to the city's financial problems.
White also tapped Michael Berry to lead the Transportation, Infrastructure and Aviation Committee, which has a major role in making good on White's campaign promise to unclog the city's traffic morass.
With those two appointments, White garnered some loyalty, [Democratic political consultant Dan] McClung said.
"He has a couple of extra votes on the council that Mayor Brown didn't have," McClung said. "That's the Lyndon Johnson approach of getting people who are likely to be the most trouble inside the tent, so they aren't inclined to go off half-cocked and take a position against you."
But Blakemore and conservatives on the council warn that White has yet to confront difficult ideological issues.
"He is banking good will right now," Blakemore said. "I have no doubt that I and other conservatives will differ with him. That time will come, but I don't necessarily think everyone is going to go away mad at the end."
I generally agree with all of this. Being a "calming influence" and keeping rival factions in line is a bigger accomplishment than you might think, and after the fractiousness of the last six years, just keeping everyone focused on getting the job done can't be overstated. I don't know how long the Allen Blakemore and Kevin Whiteds of the world will be happy with Mayor White, but I do think that when those differences that Blakemore alludes to do eventually arise, the battles will be more substantive and less acrimonious. Respecting an adversary and making that adversary feel respected by you can go a long, long way.
All that said, I do think there's some rumblings beneath the surface, and they're coming from the Democratic side of the house. The pension shortfall issue has a lot of potential to vex him. The unions are not happy about the proposed special election to opt out of Prop 15 - they see a threat to pension payments to those who are already retired or vested, and they believe changes can be made for current nonvested employees without opting out. There's time to come to an understanding about this, but things can go wrong. Having city workers plus police and firefighters upset at the Mayor doesn't mean defeat at the polls, but getting on their bad side will be a constant irritant and distraction.
Not mentioned in this article, but Mayor White's support for the 2025 Regional Transportation Plan is not very popular among public transportation activists. The story is no longer available on the Chron's website, (and their archives are currently down for service, dammit), but Katy Corridor Coalition leader Polly Ledvina noted that this plan is quite different from what White promised during his campaign. There was already some disappointment with him for not pushing Metro's more expansive rail designs when the ballot initiative was in the works last year. Again, this is perhaps not that large a constituency (though like the unions, it's a vocal one), and you'll never make everyone happy, but it's there and it's worth watching.
Be that as it may, I'm pretty happy with Mayor White, and I expect to continue to be. I do hope that down the line he'll be willing and in a good position to make a real run at a higher office. John Williams speculates today about how that might play out - it's nothing really new to me, but it's a good capsule of the possibilities. Let's get past the next 100 days first, though, OK?
I'll second Ginger's recommendation of this Chron article on spyware. There's some nasty stuff out there, and you probably don't know about it - if you are seeing messages popping up on your screen for no apparent reason, it's almost 100% that you're infected by something. The article's an easy read, and I can personally recommend AdAware and Spybot Search and Destroy (I downloaded my copy from Chron Helpline writer Jay Lee's site GeekRadio, as I learned about it from his column). I have them both and run them regularly, and thankfully have found very few infestations on our PC.
Not really addressed in here is the question of browser choice. I use Mozilla exclusively at home, and I've largely operated under the assumption that it's the best thing I'm doing to avoid unwanted additions to my computer. My experience seems to bear that out, but it would have been nice to see Dwight Silverman address the issue - I could still be lucky, after all. Whatever the case, though, this article is a must read for anyone who isn't sure what's on their computers.
UPDATE: Dwight Silverman comments that there is spyware which exploits Netscape/Mozilla, so merely avoiding IE is not a guarantee of safety. Thanks, Dwight!
There were about 33,000 hits here in March, a number that might have been a bit higher had it not been for some outages, including a major DDOS attack, on my webhost. Traffic fluctuates somewhat from week to week, with search engine referrals varying over time, but in general a normal weekday is in the 1100-1400 range while a normal weekend day is in the 600-800 range. As always, thanks to everyone for dropping by and for coming back.
I don't normally add much content to these posts, but since Big Media Matt and Angry Bear are discussing the topic of blog traffic and new blogs breaking in, I'll throw in a few thoughts. I've been around for almost exactly as long as Yglesias, and there's no question in my mind that it's harder to get noticed now. The ratio of Blogs I Ought To Read to Blogs I Actually Have Time To Read grows continuously, as I'm sure it has for everyone. A lot of new blogs only get noticed if a top-level blogger hypes them. In January of 2002, there just wasn't all that much competition, especially on the liberal side of the house, and all you had to do to get blogrolled somewhere was to blogroll someone else.
Yglesias says:
Nowadays, though, it seems like it'll be very hard to break into the top ranks unless, like [Wonkette], you can take advantage of pre-existing relationships with people who are important in the sphere.[...]
A mitigating factor is the increasing trend toward group blogs so that someone running a worthy, but under-read, site may become incorporated into a more established enterprise.
The list of 2003 Koufax Award Finalists for Best New Blog bear this out: it's almost all group blogs and pro blogs. Two non-pro blogs are Kos alumni (Steve Gilliard and Whiskey Bar), and the group blog Corrente is made up of former guest posters at Eschaton. That's a tough crowd to go up against.
But it's not impossible, and there are many ways to make a splash. I've long felt that finding a niche is key to success for most people, which is one reason why I try to keep the main focus of this blog on Texas stuff rather than national or international issues. It's not a ticket to Atrios/Kos numbers, but there's clearly a lot of interest in The Great State of Texas. Blogs with at least some focus on places that aren't that well-represented (New York, California, and DC) are usually worthwhile to me. Similarly, there's lots of law and economics blogging out there, but not a whole lot about health care, education, insurance, and so on. Find a niche and fill it, and people will find you.
Anyway, that's how I see it. Back to my original topic, top referrers and search terms are under the More link.
Aggregators, collections, indices, etc ====================================== 356: http://www.bloglines.com 249: http://www.technorati.com/ 160: http://www.blogrolling.com/ 140: http://blo.gs/
Weblog referrers
================
1811: Daily Kos
645: TAPPED
607: Atrios
308: The Burnt Orange Report
228: Calpundit
140: The Agonist
140: Pandagon
109: Kicking Ass
102: Coffee Corner
102: Rob Booth
81: A Perfectly Cromulent Blog
80: Norbizness
Top search terms
================
#reqs: search term
-----: -----------
1007: real men of genius
912: ugly people
644: diane zamora
533: jon matthews
178: american idol tryouts
112: baseball and steroids
100: william krar
95: prime number algorithm
89: schlitterbahn galveston
80: catholic high school girls in trouble
69: budweiser real men of genius
64: little hipps
62: off the kuff
61: buy girl scout cookies
59: world's largest rat
55: largest rat
53: andy pettite
Of interest to Houstonians: Sieve City is a project by a couple of Architecture grad students at Rice who want to know how far from your house you walk. Don't know what they ultimately plan on doing with it, but click over and check it out. They also have a discussion board if you want to give them some feedback. Found via the Katy Corridor Coalition mailing list.
Everyone else is linking it, so for my own future reference and your enlightenment if by some chance you haven't seen it, here's that Presidential daily briefing you've heard so much about. Full text is beneath the More link.
Declassified and Approved for Release, 10 April 2004
Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US
Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bin Ladin since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Ladin implied in US television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America."
After US missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, Bin Ladin told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a ...(redacted portion) ... service.
An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told an ... (redacted portion) ... service at the same time that Bin Ladin was planning to exploit the operative's access to the US to mount a terrorist strike.
The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of Bin Ladin's first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the US. Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that Bin Ladin lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own US attack.
Ressam says Bin Ladin was aware of the Los Angeles operation.
Although Bin Ladin has not succeeded, his attacks against the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks. Bin Ladin associates surveilled our Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.
Al-Qa'ida members -- including some who are US citizens -- have resided in or traveled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks. Two al-Qa'ida members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our Embassies in East Africa were US citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.
A clandestine source said in 1998 that a Bin Ladin cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.
We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ... (redacted portion) ... service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar 'Abd al-Rahman and other US-held extremists.
Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives.
Twenty-five years ago, a massive tornado levelled the North Texas city of Wichita Falls, killing 42 people and injuring 1700.
Walking through tornado-ravaged neighborhoods after a deadly storm 25 years ago, architect Charles F. Harper saw something strange: small closets or bathrooms that seemed to be rising from piles of debris.In many cases, the center room of a house or business -- even a bank vault -- was the only thing standing after a tornado up to a 1 1/2-mile wide churned through town, hitting 5,000 houses and several apartments. About 20,000 people -- nearly one-fourth of the city's population -- were homeless, while 42 were killed and 1,700 injured.
Harper, who had developed disaster response plans for nearly 10 years for the American Institute of Architects, started studying his town's damage with researchers at Texas Tech University in Lubbock.
What they learned from Wichita Falls sped up the development of "safe rooms" -- center rooms with reinforced walls designed to protect people during storms. Building plans and information about safe rooms are now included in brochures distributed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
"That event was unequivocal proof that you could build an structure that could withstand tornado winds," said Chad Morris, associate director of what is now the Wind Science and Engineering Research Center at Texas Tech.
The April 10, 1979, tornado that hit Wichita Falls is the state's fifth deadliest and one of the largest in U.S. history.
On that spring day, three large supercell storms developed, each producing a series of tornadoes that moved quickly across the northern Texas and southern Oklahoma plains.
Some of those twisters killed 11 people in nearby Vernon, one in Harrold and three in Lawton, Okla.
The Wichita Falls tornado stayed on the ground an hour and traveled 47 miles as it wiped out a fifth of the city and damaged even more areas before dissipating in Oklahoma. It is rated an F4, with winds from 207-260 mph.
"I don't know if any tornado in Texas has affected so many people," said Alan Moller, a Fort Worth-based National Weather Service meteorologist who spent a week in Wichita Falls after the tornado. "And we really learned a lot in terms of safety."
I have relatives who were living in Wichita Falls at that time. I spent Thanksgiving with them every year while I was in college in the 80s. You could drive around town and see where the tornado had been - in some cases you could tell how badly damaged a specific building was by the different-colored bricks. I'm glad to say that they rebuilt and recovered, but the reminders were there to see.
Although the mall was heavily damaged, no shoppers died inside. Several who ran to their cars were killed or severely injured.More than half of those killed, including the girlfriend of Harper's son and her sister, were in cars trying to flee -- believing that buildings were more dangerous -- or were passing through town and had not heard the warnings.
"The big lesson learned was that if you're in a reinforced structure, you need to stay there when a tornado's approaching," Moller said. "Automobiles are a steel death trap in a tornado."
Many people at that time had only seen narrow, funnel-shaped clouds and didn't recognize that the approaching wide, wedge-shaped mass was a tornado, Moller said.
This article from the local paper is about a family that tried and failed to outrun the tornado in their car.
In assessing damage, researchers realized that they had been giving the wrong advice in telling people to open windows as a tornado approached, Harper said. They realized that what blew the roofs off houses was wind getting inside -- and that homes with storm doors and windows or shutters fared better."We rewrote the book on what happens in a tornado and how to mitigate damage," said Harper, 74.
[...]
Since the tornado, some builders say the demand has increased for safe rooms -- with walls made of concrete blocks or plywood with reinforced steel beams. Buchanan Construction Co. builds safe rooms with 6-inch-thick concrete walls, and only builds concrete houses to meet customers' demands for tornado safety in addition to energy savings, said owner Jay Buchanan.
"I hear more about safe rooms now than I did 20 years ago," Buchanan said.
Today, the town has few reminders of the storm. Near downtown, a memorial park features large sculptures representing crepe myrtle trees that bloomed after the storm and became a symbol of the town's resolve. Another park has a plaque with the names of 45 victims, including three who died of heart attacks right after the storm, and a tree planted for each one.
Even today, the tornado still haunts many.
Dale Sanders, now 56, survived by huddling in her neighbor's cellar with three dozen other people and two dogs. Several men struggled to keep the door closed by clutching the rope.
When Sanders emerged, she didn't recognize her surroundings because houses, street signs, power poles and trees were gone. She saw a dazed man, his arm severed, walking down the street.
"I don't want to remember it," Sanders said. "The only thing I do really is watch for storms, and I do a lot of praying."
You can see a picture of the tornado in this article from USA Today. More pictures are here.
By now, you've probably heard about this church play, since it's been linked all over the liberal blogworld.
A church trying to teach about the crucifixion of Jesus performed an Easter show with actors whipping the Easter bunny and breaking eggs, upsetting several parents and young children.People who attended Saturday’s performance at Glassport’s memorial stadium quoted performers as saying, “There is no Easter bunny,” and described the show as being a demonstration of how Jesus was crucified.
Melissa Salzmann, who took her 4-year-old son J.T., said the program was inappropriate for young children. “He was crying and asking me why the bunny was being whipped,” Salzmann said.
Patty Bickerton, the youth minister at Glassport Assembly of God, said the performance wasn’t meant to be offensive. Bickerton portrayed the Easter rabbit and said she tried to act with a tone of irreverence.
“The program was for all ages, not just the kids. We wanted to convey that Easter is not just about the Easter Bunny, it is about Jesus Christ,” Bickerton said.
Performers broke eggs meant for an Easter egg hunt and also portrayed a drunken man and a self-mutilating woman, said Jennifer Norelli-Burke, another parent who saw the show in Glassport, southeast of Pittsburgh.
“It was very disturbing,” Norelli-Burke said. “I could not believe what I saw. It wasn’t anything I was expecting.”
I have good news and bad news for you. The good news is that the Easter Bunny survived this experience. The bad news is that afterwards, he was taken to...well, see for yourself.
Ever wonder if the owners of your favorite baseball team has given money to a Presidential candidate? This guy did, and he's got the results for you. I'm strangely gratified by the fact that the Mets' ownership gave four grand to Dubya. Since they've started sucking again, I haven't really felt the need to hate them like I did as a Yankee-loving kid, but now they've given me an excuse. Thanks, guys!
(BTW, the two Gs that the Yankees gave to Bob Graham has a simple explanation - George Steinbrenner's home address is Tampa, Florida.)
Via Doug Pappas.
I missed mentioning on Thursday that it was the 30th anniversary of Hank Aaron's 715th home run. David Pinto brings it up in linking to this Tim Kurkjian column in which Kurkjian expresses some sadness at the thought that Aaron's record may be short-lived at this point.
Someday, perhaps, Barry Bonds will break Aaron's record, but with all due respect to the brilliant Bonds, it won't be the same. Aaron broke Ruth's record, one that had never been seriously approached. Aaron broke it in an era when the home run was significant, as opposed to today, when it is overexposed and devalued. In 1974, no one had hit 50 in a season since Willie Mays in 1965. Last year was the first time since 1994 that there wasn't a 50-home run man. When Aaron hit 714, he was one of only 11 players with 500 career home runs, only 15 players had 400. Now, we have 19 players with 500, and 36 with 400 -- over twice as many as in 1974. In 10 years, there's probably going to be 30 guys with 500 home runs and perhaps four players -- Bonds, Aaron, Ruth and Sosa -- with 700.It was a different time then. It was more about the game and less about celebrity, chest-thumping, raising the roof and long home runs shown relentlessly on ESPN. It was about a shy right fielder who quietly snuck up on 700 home runs by blasting a record 245 of them after turning 35. He first passed Mays, which wasn't greeted warmly everywhere because some people thought it should be Mays, not Aaron, to break Ruth's amazing record.
First of all, there's no guarantees that Bonds will break this record. He's still 96 dingers short, and he turns 40 this year. If he hits homers at the same pace as the last two seasons, he'll start 2006 at about 750. Or he might not - sooner or later, he's going to suffer the inevitable decline that all ballplayers face. What it he barely reaches 25 this year? Will he want to make like Pete Rose and play along as a shadow of his former self in pursuit of a number?
There's also the risk of injury. After all, in the year 2000, a lot of people were talking about Ken Griffey and Mark McGwire as Hammerin' Hank's mortal threats. Sammy Sosa hardly gets mentioned any more, and he's still playing at a fairly high level. Anything can happen. There's a reason Aaron's record has stood this long, just as there was a reason why Babe Ruth's had stood so long before it.
Personally, I don't agree with Kurkjian's grumbling about so many players with 400 or 500 home runs. In the 50 years between Babe Ruth's emergence as the game's first home run hitter to Hank Aaron's eclipse of his career record, 11 men reached 500 homers. In the 30 years since then, eight more have joined that club. That's not exactly a flood. Two more may join them this year, if the carcass of Fred McGriff is on an active roster somewhere and if Junior Griffey can stay healthy this time around; after that, it's three more guys who are on the wrong side of 35, injury risks, and in need of at least two more full seasons to get there if all goes well - Juan Gonzalez, Jeff Bagwell, and Frank Thomas. Can you really say any of them didn't earn their way there?
Anyway, I wish Barry Bonds well, and will consider him to be an all-time great whether he breaks Aaron's record or not. I strongly suspect he won't be subjected to the same kind of ugly hatred or racism that Aaron faced as he approached the Babe. At least there we can say things are unquestionably better now than they were then.
(By the way, does anyone remember - or better yet, know someplace online where I can find - the "Peanuts" strips that were done around this time, in which Snoopy was challenging the home run record and was getting hate mail for it? A Google search failed me. Thanks.)
UPDATE: Interestingly enough, David Pinto is suggesting that Junior Griffey is still alive in the catch-Aaron race. Let's see if he can make it through this year with 150 games played first.
This is just weird.
If Jeff Skilling's lawyers are right -- that he and his wife were taken to the hospital after being attacked by two men on New York City's Upper East Side on Friday morning -- the case of the beleaguered ex-Enron CEO will proceed without a ripple.But if law enforcement's version of the incident is true -- that Skilling was intoxicated and accosting strangers incoherently, asking if they were FBI agents -- a judge could find he violated the terms of his bond, which requires he not be excessively intoxicated.
Such a violation could result in his $5 million bond being revoked, detention for a month or even until his trial, and his being forced to undergo counseling. Skilling, 50, has pleaded not guilty to 35 felony counts relating to the demise of Enron Corp.
Details of the incident, first reported by the Associated Press on Friday afternoon, were supported by law enforcement officials.
But Skilling's attorney Bruce Hiler said the story is "grossly inaccurate."
[...]
Police found Skilling at the corner of Park Avenue and East 73rd Street and determined he might be an "emotionally disturbed person," a police source told the Associated Press.
Law enforcement sources said Skilling was at two Manhattan bars -- the neighborhood bar American Trash and the nearby and more hip and celebrity-prone Vudu Lounge -- where he is alleged to have run up to patrons and pulled open their clothes.
Hiler said Skilling did not go into either bar.
"He was shouting at them, `You're an FBI agent and you're following me,' " law enforcement officials confirmed. They said Skilling did the same thing to people on the street.
Skilling was not charged with a crime, which would likely cause his bond to be revoked, and he was later released from the hospital.
Hiler said Skilling's wife, Rebecca Carter, the former Enron board of directors secretary, was knocked unconscious and suffered a concussion. She was also tested at the hospital but left against a doctor's advice, he said.
Officials said there were a number of 911 calls made to the police by different people, not all from the same address because he was moving down the street. That could be consistent with Skilling's lawyer's version.
It is unknown if there was any fight, officials said. They added that Skilling's wife could have gone with him voluntarily in the police car.
[...]
Should this issue be brought up in a revocation hearing, it could be on the judge's own request or on the request of the probation department or the government.
Asked for comment Friday, Enron Task Force Director Andrew Weissmann said, "We will respond to Mr. Skilling's attorneys in court."
"It's impossible to tell from here which story is true," said Houston attorney David Berg. "If he was accosted for no reason, this matters little to the case. But if the police story is true, it's an example of the kind of extraordinary pressure put on a person who has fallen from such a high place."
I'll say. I will be very interested to see what if anything the judge and the prosecution make of this.
A federal lawsuit in which Clear Channel has been accused of keeping artists of their radio stations unless they promote their tours through them can proceed.
On April 2, the judge tossed out part of [Denver concert promoter Nobody in Particular Presents]'s claims that Clear Channel illegally monopolized the market for rock concert tickets. But [U.S. District Judge Edward] Nottingham ruled that it could proceed with its allegations that the conglomerate attempted to create a monopoly. He set a trial date for Aug. 2.Much of the evidence in the case remains under seal. But in his 125-page decision, Nottingham cited excerpts from several depositions and e-mails that allegedly show that Clear Channel executives tied airplay on Clear Channel stations to artists' appearances at Clear Channel concerts.
In one instance, an executive with Roadrunner Records, Jason Martin, testified in a deposition that a Clear Channel executive in charge of FM stations in Denver, Michael O'Connor, threatened in 2000 to yank the record label's acts off the air when he learned that they were touring with Nobody in Particular Presents. O'Connor declined to comment this week.
Another Roadrunner executive then e-mailed managers for artists involved in the flap, the judge said in his decision, and advised them to avoid using Nobody in Particular Presents or risk losing airplay.
In another deposition, a manager for rock singer Lennon testified that her label, Arista Records, demanded that she cancel a concert booked with Nobody in Particular Presents to avoid losing airplay on one of Clear Channel's Denver stations, KBPI. Airplay data submitted by the plaintiff indicate that Clear Channel stations had reduced the airtime given to songs by another Arista rock act, Adema, after the band signed a concert deal with the same concert promoter.
This is an antitrust suit, so that means triple damages if the plaintiff wins.
If you're a pregnant woman, anyway.
LONDON (Reuters) - Pregnant women rejoice. Eating chocolate is good for the baby, say Finnish researchers.Scientists at the University of Helsinki, who asked 300 pregnant women to record their chocolate consumption and stress levels, found that daily treats had a positive impact on the newborn baby's behavior.
Six months after the infants were born the mothers who had eaten chocolate reported more smiling and laughter in their offspring.
"And the babies of stressed women who had regularly consumed chocolate showed less fear of new situations than babies of stressed women who had abstained," New Scientist magazine said Tuesday.
Katri Raikkanen and colleagues who conducted the research admitted they can't be certain that chocolate consumption and the babies' behavior are not linked with other factors.
"But they speculate that the effects they observed could result from chemicals in chocolate associated with a positive mood being passed on to the baby in the womb," the magazine added.
You've never seen such happiness as when Tiffany read this article. All she needs now is for them to do a followup study which shows that high-quality dark chocolate like Leonidas or Lindt has even more benefit.
Via Hope.
Pieces of an airplane that were found recently have been definiteively identified as being from the plane Antoine Saint-Exupery was flying when he was last seen.
The mystery of the death of Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, who celebrated the mysteries of life so charmingly in "The Little Prince," remains intact.Or nearly. French researchers are due to announce Friday that 60 years after the philosopher-pilot crashed into the Mediterranean Sea, they have found, and identified beyond a doubt, the remains of Saint-Exupéry's Lockheed P-38.
But why he crashed, and how, whether he was shot down, lost control of his plane, or, as some historians have suggested, committed suicide, will, perhaps fittingly, never be known. As the Fox tells the Little Prince: "One can see clearly only with the heart. The essential is invisible to the eye."
[...]
As Allied troops prepared to invade the south of France, Saint-Exupéry took off from an airfield in Sardinia on the morning of July 31, 1944, to photograph German troop positions in the French Alps. He never returned to base.
For more than half a century, that was all that was known. And then one day in 1998 a fisherman trawling near the port of Marseille found in his net a silver bracelet engraved with the name Consuelo - Saint-Exupéry's wife's name.
The news reminded Marseille dive-shop owner Luc Vanrell that he had seen pieces of an old airplane at the bottom of the sea near where the bracelet had come up. Two years later, after much searching, he found a piece of metal stamped with a manufacturer's serial number, 2734 L.
The piece of metal, it turned out, was part of a turbocharger from a Lockheed Lightning P-38, the sort of plane that Saint-Ex had been flying on his last sortie. Last fall, Mr. Vanrell won government permission to salvage more of the plane, and brought up nearly two dozen bits and pieces - enough to identify the aircraft as a second-generation P-38, modified for reconnaissance, exactly the model Saint-Exupéry had been flying.
A few weeks ago, a team of enthusiasts under the guidance of Patrick Grandjean, a French Ministry of Culture marine archaeologist, found definitive proof in US Air Force and Lockheed archives: a technical drawing of Saint-Exupéry's plane, with the serial number of its turbocharger: 2734 L. "There is no arguing with that," says Mr. Grandjean. "We can be perfectly certain."
Certain of the twisted piece of metal's provenance, perhaps, but of little else. No bullet holes have been found in the wreckage to suggest that Saint-Exupéry was shot down, but then only a few fragments of the plane have surfaced.
Did the engine malfunction? "The plane hit the sea very violently, to judge by the way the metal is twisted," says Vanrell. "It doesn't look like a failed emergency landing on water. One might guess that it fell vertically from a great height."
But Vanrell and his fellow researchers can only guess. "He dropped out of the glorious sky," says Grandjean. "We can say nothing more."
Rest in peace, Saint-Ex. Thanks to Linkmeister for the catch.
What were the odds of this?
With the Astros and Giants doing battle down at Minute Maid Park the previous three nights, media coverage of the River Oaks International had been bare bones at best. But the TV tower and photographers' row were going to be standing-room-only in the sold-out stadium Thursday night, and the shutterbugs weren't pouring in to shoot Vince Spadea's gams.Like the spring flowers on the leafy River Oaks Country Club grounds, Annamania was bursting forth. Alas, the buzz died quickly when the discouraging word trickled out that Anna Kournikova was laid up in her Galleria-area hotel room, too ill and/or exhausted to answer the bell for an exhibition match against talented American teenager Carly Gullickson.
Apparently Kournikova's jet-setting lifestyle caught up with her, much to the dismay of River Oaks International officials and the 3,300-plus fans with tickets. A significant number of those were sold just for the Kournikova session, and there's no telling how many of the season passes were bought to ensure an up-close-and-personal look at one of the world's most, uh, admired sports figures.
And Kournikova, 22, isn't even an active player at present, having been sidelined by chronic back problems since last year. She's most famous, tennis-wise, for perhaps being the best player never to have won a singles title.
"Best"? Try "best known". Would any of us know her name if her looks were on par with her professional play? Please.
(Aside to Kevin: Note the byline on the story. Is this a fitting use of Dale Robertson's talents or what?)
Guess what? All that pollution from the cement plants in nearby Ellis County really does make a difference to Dallas and Fort Worth, despite what Smokey Joe Barton says.
Environ International, in a study to be released today, reports that "large industrial combustion sources in Ellis County" significantly contribute to ozone formation on days when the air quality poses the most health risks to residents.Pollution blown in from Ellis County, and to a lesser extent the other counties surrounding the Metroplex, must be reduced if the region is ever going to comply with federal air-quality standards, according to the 73-page study obtained by the Star-Telegram.
A political dispute is growing increasingly contentious -- and getting national attention -- about whether to group Ellis County with Tarrant, Denton, Dallas and Collin counties in an ozone nonattainment area.
Leaders of the other four counties insist that Ellis County and its industrial pollution must be included in any clean-air plan if the region is to comply with tough new federal ozone standards that will take effect this year.
The county judges from Dallas and Collin counties will present a copy of the Environ study to Mike Leavitt, head of the federal Environmental Protection Agency, when they meet with him today in Washington, D.C. The county judges are lobbying Leavitt to include Ellis County in the regionwide nonattainment zone.
[...]
Barton, a Republican who maintains a residence in Ennis, has pressured federal and state regulators not to include Ellis County in the ozone nonattainment area. He has argued that Ellis County pollution does not significantly contribute to ozone formation in Dallas-Fort Worth.
Barton is chairman of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has legislative oversight of the EPA. He met last week with Leavitt in an effort to persuade him to exclude Ellis County.
[...]
Ellis County Judge Chad Adams criticized the study's conclusions in an April 1 letter to the Texas Environmental Research Consortium, which paid for the Environ study.
The consortium is a nonprofit group formed in 2002 to help local policy-makers improve their understanding of the science of ozone.
Adams, whose letter is included as an appendix in the Environ study, was upset that the study's conclusions are based on computer models and analysis of high ozone days in August 1999, and do not take into account emissions reductions that he said Ellis County has made in the past few years.
"Ellis County has been aggressive in its implementation of voluntary emission controls," he wrote, adding that there are "stringent requirements" in place to reduce ozone-producing emissions from the county's cement kilns.
"I must remain in disagreement with the conclusions in the Environ study," Adams wrote.
Environ responded by including state data that show ozone-producing emissions from Ellis County's cement kilns increased between 1999 and 2002.
"These data show no downward trend for the Ellis County cement kiln emissions in recent years," the study said.
That would be because voluntary pollution-reduction remedies don't work. Shocking, I know. We'll see what Barton has to say about this study; my guess is he'll dismiss it out of hand as being politically motivated, which he of course would never be. If you think these folks deserve better, go pay a visit to Morris Meyer.
Governor Perry finally laid out his school finance reform plan yesterday, and I will give him credit for one thing: he's finally recognized that some new money needs to be injected into the system. Reaction to his announcement was better than I expected, partially as a result of this. Coverage is here, here, here, here, and here.
Of course, a lot of that new revenue comes from taxes focused on small segments of the population - smokers, gamblers, and now strip club patrons. There's been a lot of joking and some grumbling about that latter, but let's face it: There's not going to be any widespread objections to these proposals because their constituencies are too small and scattered. Taxing them is easy and painless for politicians to do, at least until they eventually prove to be the unreliable streams that critics said they'd be. I hate to agree with anyone from Phillip Morris, but this quote from the Statesman article echoes a lot of things I've said here before and still agree with:
Jamie Drogin, a spokeswoman for Philip Morris USA, said the tax hike would bring unintended consequences, including increased Internet purchase of cigarettes, as well as smuggling from nearby states with lower taxes."Over the past few years, as many states have risen their excise taxes, what we have seen is a decrease in legitimate sales and an increase in illegal or contraband activity," Drogin said.
She added that tobacco sales are declining 1 percent to 2 percent a year and would not be a reliable source of income for funding public schools.
"What's going to happen to the state of Texas is they're not going to get the funds that they expect, and the second problem is what they are going to see is an increase in illegal activity."
As for gambling, I just want you to read the following from the DMN article:
To help boost profits from the state lottery, which now provides nearly $1 billion a year for public education, the governor suggested that lottery players for the first time be allowed to use credit cards.
If there's been a more misguided or less moral public policy idea floated anywhere recently, I'd rather not know about it.
If you haven't read the Statesman's two-parter on the decline of mixed-politics communities (Part One, Part Two), I recommend checking them out. A couple of my own thoughts:
As author Bill Bishop noted in Lasso, the numbers he plays around with are those of voters, not overall population. It would be interesting to get an idea what if any correlation exists between the proliferation of so-called "landslide counties" and voter turnout. Do competitive counties have higher participation rates, or does an increase in single-party identification drive people to the ballot box? Also, how do turnout rates compare over time for officially nonpartisan elections in places that have them (such as Houston's municipal elections) and regular Dem versus GOP elections?
Jerome Armstrong has noted that there has been a significant increase lately in people who respond "other/not sure" when asked what their party affiliation is, which leads him to speculate that the opening for a real third party is getting wider. We already know that in Texas at least, third parties like the Libertarians and Greens get much of their overall vote total in elections where the candidate of one major party runs unopposed by the other. Are there any national trends here? Do the Greens/Libs/Reforms/etc do better overall in landslide counties?
Finally, as this Chron article notes, of the 38 counties with more than one million people in them, four of the fastest growing ones are Texas counties (Tarrant, Harris, Bexar, and Dallas, in that order). All but Tarrant have been trending more Democratic, which is good news for Democrats overall. (Already very Democratic Travis County, which has about 850,000 people, grew at a 5.5% clip during this time, which puts it a smidge behind Harris and Bexar in growth rate.) Balancing that out is the fact that the six fastest growing counties in Texas with at least 100,000 people are all Republican strongholds (Williamsom, Collin, Fort Bend, Denton, Montgomery, Hays). Don't expect the trends Bishop is talking about to change any time soon around here.
(Note: the Census data from which that latter Chron story came is here.)
Kerry points to this email from a contractor in Iraq, who has a few thoughts about the recent killings in Fallujah and the big picture overall. Well worth the read, so go check it out.
Here's a handy guide to Condoleeza Rice's opening statement and the ensuing Q & A from her testimony today, courtesy of the Center for American Progress. If you're still hungry for more, they have that, too.
Get ready, because Governor Perry will finally unveil his school finance reform proposals today in San Antonio.
Richard Olivarez, superintendent of the San Antonio School District, said he would welcome Perry to Fox Tech High School on Thursday, but hopes the governor will make his plan "palatable" by offering more education aid — on top of Perry's proposal to put $500 million a year into bonuses to teachers and schools for student performance.Commenting on the risks of spelling out any funding plan, Sen. Steve Ogden, R-Bryan, said recently: "This so politically treacherous, it is just difficult to get out front and stick your neck out."
Ogden was a House member in the early 1990s when lawmakers struggled to heed the Texas Supreme Court's mandate to establish an equitable funding approach, a demand rooted in the decades-long legal fight led by San Antonio's Edgewood district.
"History shows that the first plan out is dead," Ogden said. "It's the last plan that passes, not the first."
[...]
According to a private presentation by Perry in San Antonio, his plan would lower school maintenance and operation property taxes on homesteads to $1.25 per $100 valuation. Businesses, however, would be subject to a statewide property tax starting at $1.40 per $100 valuation.
The plan would require legislators in future years to gradually lower the maximum tax rates to 75 cents per $100 valuation as state revenue comes available.
[...]
Lobbyist Brad Shields said GOP legislators at a retreat attended by Perry in Boerne last month "aggressively discussed" an alternative approach removing only tax revenue raised from homes from being redistributed to other districts, leaving revenue generated by commercial property subject to redistribution.
Shields speculated such an approach, also proposed by the Greater Houston Partnership, might be Perry's Plan B if the plan presented Thursday falters. Perry's office didn't immediately return a call for comment.
Shields, representing districts whose property wealth depends on heavy industry, prepared an analysis of the alternative plan indicating the highly residential Highland Park district in Dallas would see the biggest gain in reduced Robin Hood contributions.
The Chron suggests that Perry may have another new revenue source in mind: strip clubs.
Perry is expected to publicly unveil a plan for a statewide tax on business property that he has been circulating privately among business leaders and lawmakers in recent weeks.Perry, who has said repeatedly that he doesn't want a major tax bill, also is expected to discuss other ideas for raising revenue for schools, including new "sin" taxes on cigarettes, gambling and patrons of adult nightclubs.
State Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, said Wednesday he had heard that Perry had been discussing a $5-per-person tax on adult entertainment.
Whitmire said he didn't know what kind of entertainment the tax would include but joked that he wouldn't have to pay it.
"You're asking the wrong adult. You'd have to ask Perry. Maybe he knows more about that than me," Whitmire said. "I could refer you to a couple of my colleagues, but I don't frequent them.
"It does sound like a consumer tax to me," he added.
Maybe he could contact the Missouri Legislature for some advice on how best to impose this tax. Not that it would affect Mister Nice Respectable Married Guy over here.
As far as consensus goes, Perry's plan to cap property tax appraisals took yet another beating, this time in Dallas, Fort Worth, and surrounding areas. When places like Denton and Plano are critical of a Republican proposal to limit a form of taxation, you know the idea is in trouble.
Finally, as Andrew D notes, there are now at least two competing income tax proposals. Both are being pushed by Democrats, which makes them even deader than dead, but it's still good to get them in the mix. Go check out Rep. Eddie Rodriguez' income tax calculator, which demonstrates that his income tax plan, which includes a large swath of property tax relief, would save most people some money.
UPDATE: And here it is. Let the griping begin!
A biopic of former Astros pitcher J.R. Richard is in the works.
Resurrection: The J.R. Richard Story will begin with Richard being rushed from the ballpark in an ambulance after collapsing from a stroke in 1980.The movie starts shooting next month in Houston.
Through flashbacks, Richard will remember his youth and big-league career, especially 1976 to 1979, when he won 74 games for the Astros and was the most intimidating, scariest pitcher in the National League.
[...]
Bokeem Woodbine has been tabbed to play Richard in the biopic. Rice graduate Greg Carter is the director. Charlie Bethea is the executive producer.
Screenwriter Keith Kjornes said he was "completely captivated" by Richard's story when he researched the project.
"I'm not a sports fanatic, but when you look at this man's accomplishments -- wow!" Kjornes said.
"What fascinates me is the human element, how he was dragged into the gutter. There is no doubt that if stayed healthy, he would be in the Hall of Fame today. To go from the world of big league baseball to sleeping in a cardboard box -- and now to get his life back on track -- it's an incredible journey."
I think it's not totally clear that Richard would have made it to Cooperstown had he not had that stroke. He had some fine seasons, no question about it, but he wasn't really a full-time player until he was 25. As such, I think he'd have lagged in some career numbers. Assuming he continued at the same pace as the five full seasons he did have, he'd have been 35 or maybe 36 by the time he won his 200th game, which puts him on the fringes. Above 220 wins, especially with a good winning percentage (which he had) to go along with the strikeouts and low ERA, and he'd be pretty close to a lock. Wind the clock back to the start of the 1980 season and I'd have put his odds at above 50% for the Hall, with the main concern being sufficiently good health to ensure a long enough career. For sure it's a damn shame we never got to see him try.
And hey, you can be in the movie, too:
An open casting call for actors will be held from noon to 5 p.m. Saturday and Sunday at the Doubletree Hotel, 5353 Westheimer."We're looking for everything from children to teammates to corporate baseball executives to groupies -- all the people you can imagine who inhabit a baseball star's life," casting director Benjamin Jimerson said.
I'm ready for my closeup.
A few updates on the various DeLay-related scandals, brouhahas, and lawsuits:
The original lawsuit filed by four losing Democratic candidates after the 2002 election in which they charged that ads run against them by the Texas for a Republican Majority used corporate money illegally survived a couple of pretrial motions to dismiss and/or limit it.
Texans for a Republican Majority's attorneys had asked Judge [Darlene] Byrne to dismiss the lawsuit. If she ruled against them, they asked that she restrict the damages for which the political committee might be liable.She refused both requests in a pretrial order.
In that same lawsuit, DeLay staffer and executive director of Americans for a Republican Majority (from which TRM flowed) Jim Ellis is making the ludicrous claim that he should not be sued because he did not establish the "minimum contact" necessary to be sued in Texas. Yes, this is as stupid as it sounds.
According to Monday's filing, Ellis lives in Virginia, works in the District of Columbia, owns no property in Texas and has never engaged in a business in Texas. A judge weighs those kinds of factors to decide whether a person outside Texas has enough contact in the state to be sued.Records show that Ellis is no stranger to Texas or its politics.
At DeLay's direction, Ellis helped create the Texas committee. As executive director of DeLay's Americans for a Republican Majority, he sent the fledgling Texas group its $50,000 in start-up money.
He listed himself on state reports as a key decision-maker and paid consultant to Texans for a Republican Majority. He also helped decide which GOP candidates the committee would support in 2002 elections and sometimes traveled to Texas on the committee's business.
In 2003, Ellis spent months in Texas on DeLay's behalf, carrying DeLay's wishes to state lawmakers as they drew congressional maps behind closed doors. He also did lobbying for a Virginia company that has $29 million in highway maintenance contracts and for a Washington law firm that represented a coalition of international charities.
J.D. Pauerstein, Ellis' San Antonio lawyer, said it doesn't matter: "Essentially, we don't feel the contact Mr. Ellis has had with Texas is the kind or quality to justify being subject to jurisdiction."
Austin lawyer Cris Feldman, who represents four Democratic candidates who are trying to sue Ellis, called his position disingenuous and farcical.
"Ellis wasn't above choosing our Texas congressmen," Feldman said, "but now he believes he's above Texas law."
[...]
In his deposition for a lawsuit challenging the redistricting map, Ellis said he came to Texas frequently during 2003. He said he attended meetings with Gov. Rick Perry, DeLay and other state leaders as early as January and worked off and on in Austin until the legislation was passed in October.
He worked very closely with the bill's House sponsor, Rep. Phil King, R-Weatherford.
Ellis said he visited King "closer to 50 times than 25" during the redistricting controversy.
King said Ellis served as the funnel for Republican members of Congress to tell King what they wanted in the map.
"From the end of spring, April and May, when we were doing serious map-drawing, he was down here weekly," King said. "In the summer, he was down a couple days a week, sometimes four or five days running."
You have to wonder what Ellis would consider "minimum contact" to be. I love this bit of reasoning from his attorney:
"If I go to Florida to go fishing, that doesn't mean I can be sued in Florida on something that has nothing to do with my fishing," he said. "If I hit someone with a fish hook, I can be sued in Florida for hooking someone."
I guess he's claiming that Ellis had no role whatsoever if the defeat of any Democratic candidate for the state House in 2002. None of this even remotely passes the smell test, and the Statesman's editorial page lets him have it.
The argument that Ellis wasn't in Texas enough to warrant his being subject to a lawsuit is risible. Republicans working with Ellis have testified in previous depositions that he was here frequently -- not fishing, but deciding which candidates to target in the 2002 election and working closely with the redistricting committee leadership.Ellis was in the state for months during the the redistricting battle, which was played out most of last year in one regular and three special legislative sessions. Ellis said he met with the House sponsor of the redistricting bill, state Rep. Phil King, R-Weatherford, close to 50 times.
Ellis was the conduit for information from DeLay to the legislators doing his bidding. King said Ellis was in Texas weekly early in the redistricting battle then several times a week during the summer. And now he doesn't want to return to face the music?
Ellis should readily, and happily, acknowledge his ties to the Lone Star State over the past two years. They're certainly extensive enough. The GOP is quite proud of what the party accomplished with Ellis' help, through the Texans for a Republican Majority and the Texas Association of Business.
The reason for all of this twaddle, of course, is that it buys time, just as all of Andy Taylor's tactics have done. The law and the facts are not on their side, so they're table-pounding for all they're worth.
Meanwhile, the grand jury investigation continues apace as prosecutors have subpoenaed records from AT&T related to the 2002 elections.
An AT&T spokesman confirmed Tuesday that prosecutors subpoenaed records from the corporation's vice president of government relations, Michael Jewell, who is based in Austin.Kerry Hibbs, an AT&T spokesman, declined to say what the subpoena requested specifically except to say, "It's the topic you've been writing about."
The subpoena has not been filed publicly, and prosecutors declined to comment Tuesday.
And finally, in other news, Westar has completed its internal investigation into its controversial DeLay donation of 2002 and has handed its findings to the FEC.
However, CEO Jim Haines gave few other details after making those statements during a three-hour hearing by Kansas utility regulators, who have been reviewing Westar's management since 2001.Last year saw the disclosure of company e-mails from 2002 detailing a plan to give $56,000 to Republican congressional campaigns that year "to get a seat at the table" of a House-Senate conference committee on energy legislation. House members of the committee supported a regulatory exemption sought by Westar.
"We have completed our internal investigation," Haines said. "The matter is being considered by the FEC. It's our anticipation that the matter will be dealt with in due course."
Haines later declined to elaborate.
The activities occurred under former CEO David Wittig, who left Westar in November 2002.
In August 2003, Westar revised its policies on political donations, saying the company would make corporate contributions to state or federal candidates, even where state law permitted them. Federal law bars them.
The policy change came three months after an internal company report said executives had "engaged in organized efforts" to contribute to state and federal candidates "perceived to support issues of interest to the company."
The report also said, "At least some officers felt pressured to contribute," and spurred Westar to investigate further.
The biggest donation was $25,000 by the company to a political action committee affiliated with U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, a Texas Republican, then the House whip, now the majority leader.
You may be pleased to hear that Westar has been barred from making any payments to former CEO Wittig as he awaits trial on 40 charges alleging he looted the energy company. I know I am.
TAB/TRM links via Save Texas Reps. First Westar link via AJ Garcia.
How has President Bush responded to the recent awful news coming out of Iraq?
At his ranch near Crawford, Texas, President Bush held a 20-minute telephone conference call to discuss the fast-breaking events in Iraq with top Cabinet officials including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, national security adviser Condoleeza Rice and Richard Meyers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.Bush "received an update about the offensive military action" in Fallujah and other parts of Iraq and was told that U.S. and coalition troops were "performing well," said White House press secretary Scott McClellan.
He said Bush, who is scheduled to stay at his ranch until Monday, would receive updates "as warranted."
All that brush won't clear itself, you know. Someone has to stay on top of it.
Via The Agonist, who notes that Bush has been on vacation all this week.
It appears to be official now that Governor Perry really truly will call a special session on school finance reform later this month even though he still doesn't have anything resembling the kind of consensus he claimed to want as a prerequisite. That doesn't stop him from claiming consensus anyway.
Under the governor's proposal, residential property would be taxed by local school districts, while business and commercial property would be subject to a new state property tax. The local tax rate for residential property would drop 25 cents to a maximum rate of $1.25 per $100 valuation, while the new state tax rate would initially be capped at $1.40 – a decrease of 10 cents.[...]
Mr. Perry said Tuesday: "Business leaders I talked to as late as yesterday in Houston were very supportive" of the proposal. He called it a "constitutionally linked" plan that would treat residential and business property taxes similarly even though one would be taxed locally and the other taxed by the state.
I guess he didn't talk to these business leaders.
"It doesn't make sense to lower property taxes for homeowners and leave property taxes high for businesses if what we want to do is encourage businesses to make investments in the state," said Bill Allaway, president of the Texas Taxpayers and Research Association, which represents 250 companies of various sizes.[...]
Perry insisted that his plan is gaining support, but he didn't name any businesses that are publicly backing it. Last week, 17 of the state's most influential business and trade groups sent a letter to House and Senate education chairmen opposing the idea of splitting the business and residential tax rolls.
"The split roll will inevitably lead to higher property tax burdens on businesses, discouraging new investment and stifling job creation," the letter stated.
The signers included several general business groups along with trade organizations representing electric companies, oil and gas concerns, bankers, Realtors, electronics firms and wholesale beer distributors.
Sounds like an awfully big segment of Perry's personal board of directors to me. As noted here, the Texas Association of Business is also opposed to this plan.
One of the ideas Perry is now pushing (having cribbed it from Comptroller Strayhorn) is a cigarette tax hike. Via Mac comes this example of a one possible shenanigan we may have to look forward to:
[Alabama Governor Bob] Riley's proposed cigarette tax. It would raise state taxes from 16.5 cents to 56.5 cents per pack but give refunds to major tobacco companies, which under a 1998 national lawsuit settlement pay the state about $100 million a year.The net tax increase, if passed along to consumers, would be about 9 cents per pack on major cigarette brands, which would raise $30 million a year. The full tax of 40 cents per pack would be imposed on generic cigarettes made by smaller companies that don't make settlement payments, which would raise $10 million a year.
The state of Texas has a big tobacco settlement as well, so we could do something like this. I'm guessing the reason for doing it that way instead of a single flat tax is so that the state can hold onto some of that cash for awhile and earn interest on it before paying the refunds. It'd be interesting to get an economist's best guess as to how each of these methods would affect demand. Another possibility is to allow for some accounting dodges, where the revenue is booked in one fiscal year while the refunds are paid out in the next. Seems to me the abuse potential is pretty high, but I doubt that'd be a concern to anyone.
Whoa. Things just got exciting again in Enronville.
Lea Fastow could be the first former Enron employee to go to trial after all.U.S. District Judge David Hittner announced to a crowded courtroom this morning that he would not follow the plea arrangement between the government and Lea Fastow.
The judge would not tell Lea Fastow what his sentence might be. Instead he insisted she decide whether to take his sentence or not. She withdrew her guilty plea and will now be scheduled for a Brownsville trial, with jury selection starting in June.
Fastow had agreed with Enron Task Force prosecutors that she will serve five months in prison and another five months under home confinement. This was part of complex negotiations that led to her husband's guilty plea and his cooperation with prosecutors. The government has said Andrew Fastow's testimony helped indict two former officials including ex-CFO Jeff Skilling and could lead to charges against other top executives.
So, basically, the judge decided he'd go with his own sentence rather than accept the plea, and Lea said "thanks but I'll take my chances at trial". Apparently, she'll need to get an acquittal in order to realistically do better than the plea, and could wind up significantly worse off. Andy Fastow can't back out of his plea, but now he might not be so cooperative as a witness against Skilling and maybe Kenny Boy.
Hold onto your hats, 'cause here we go.
If you judge a person by who his or her opponents are, Rep. Martin Frost is looking good right about now: An anti-immigration organization called the Coalition of Future American Workers which has ties to a racist group is running ads that denounce him.
The advertisements, which are scheduled to run into next week on Dallas' ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC affiliate stations, feature dark images of black and Hispanic people with an off-camera voice stating that Mr. Frost supports legislation that would allow immigrants to crowd schools, drive down worker wages and deplete the job pool.They do not mention [Frost's opponent, Rep. Pete] Sessions, nor do they allude to the congressmen's congressional race in Texas' 32nd District, which political experts rank among the most high-profile and potentially expensive in the nation.
Federal records show that the Coalition for the Future American Worker's member organizations receive financing from other organizations, such as the Pioneer Fund, which studies racial differences and counts Nazi sympathizers among its founders.
How did the Sessions campaign react to this?
Sessions campaign manager Chris Homan said Mr. Sessions has no knowledge of the organization sponsoring the advertisements, the Coalition for the Future American Worker, and no involvement with them."We're not going to engage groups like this in any capacity," Mr. Homan said.
Note that there was no denunciation of the ads or their sponsor. Just a data point for you.
The ads themselves are apparently pretty vague about what offense against native born Americans Martin Frost is supposed to have committed.
The advertisements do not cite specific legislation, only saying, "Martin Frost is sponsoring a bill to give amnesty to up to 1.2 million illegal aliens in Texas."[CFAW spokesman Dan] Stein said the advertisements primarily refer to two bills concerning immigration: House Bill 3274 and House Bill 1684. His organization "only had so much room in the text of the ad" and left some information out, Mr. Stein said.
Mr. Frost said that no bill he is sponsoring or co-sponsoring will ever give amnesty in Texas to hundreds of thousands of undocumented workers.
"I have no idea what they're talking about, quite frankly," Mr. Frost said. "I'm for the freedom of the press. I'm for the First Amendment. But I'm not for people to lie with impunity."
David Neiwert points to some background on John Tanton, the godfather of many anti-immigrant organizations like CFAW. I can't find a direct statement to verify what he says about Tanton being CFAW's founder, but Tanton was the founder and funder of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), for whom the Dan Stein quoted in the DMN article is the executive director (more info here). That's close enough for me. These same guys also apparently ran a similar ad in Iowa during the Democratic caucus which attacked all of the candidates.
Rep. Ciro Rodriguez is still talking about filing a lawsuit to overturn the recounted results in the CD 28 Democratic primary, though he hasn't actually filed yet. He is lining up support for his effort, though.
Tuesday, Rodriguez was joined by several elected officials and supporters, including City Councilmen Enrique Barrera and Richard Perez, former state Sen. Joe Bernal and fellow congressman Charlie Gonzalez, who impugned the latest election results that give Cuellar a 203-vote lead in the race."This is an incredible result. This is beyond belief. There is something wrong," said Gonzalez, whose own re-election effort could be challenged by his former wife, Becky Whetstone. She is considering a run for the 20th Congressional District as an independent candidate.
This AP story has more from Rodriguez' latest salvo.
[O]n Tuesday he ratcheted up his rhetoric by producing a chart that directly compared last week's ballot recount to the so-called "Box 13" skullduggery in South Texas that some claim stole the 1948 U.S. Senate election for Lyndon B. Johnson.But Rodriguez stops short of claiming that it was outright vote fraud in Webb and Zapata counties that allowed his opponent, Laredo lawyer Henry Cuellar, to take a 203-vote lead in last week's districtwide recount.
"I'll leave that to my attorneys," Rodriguez said after a news conference Tuesday in his hometown of San Antonio.
"But what was found in Zapata and Webb counties is similar to what they found in Box 13 -- magical, mysterious votes that were just enough to put (Cuellar) over the top," he said.
Given my usual prescience in predicting the outcome of the recount, I offer no guesses as to how the lawsuit will play out. I just hope that whoever does win is able to do so in a manner that doesn't leave him fatally weakened in the general election where, you may recall, there will be a Republican opponent. Have your days in court, fellas, but in the end - eyes on the prize, OK?
The following is from this WaPo article about the failure of a GOP political action committee that was set up to recruit and help out minority candidates to actually give money to such candidates:
Shortly before the 2000 elections, American Dream PAC transferred $90,000 to the Maine, Delaware, Florida and Arkansas Republican parties. An additional $10,000 went to Texans Against Gerrymandering, a group set up by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.) to purchase software and draft maps in connection with the GOP redistricting effort.
Emphasis mine. If you'll excuse me, I'm late for an appointment with a white rabbit. Link via TPM.
There's a movement afoot to get write-in candidates on the ballot for the general election in CD 10.
Professor Lorenzo Sadun, who holds a Ph.D. certifying that he can do the math, understands the challenge he would face as a potential Democratic write-in candidate in the 10th Congressional District."I figure this is a district that was designed so no Democrat can win against a responsible Republican opponent," said Sadun, a University of Texas math professor. "But I don't think we have a responsible Republican opponent."
For weeks, Republicans Michael McCaul and Ben Streusand, who meet in Tuesday's GOP runoff, have been telling audiences that their contest is the de facto general election because no Democrats filed in the race.
By most measures, the district, which includes a third of Travis County and stretches to suburban Houston, is at least 60 percent Republican.
Sadun, who teaches a probability course, understands what that means. But he is moving forward with the effort to qualify as a write-in candidate in November.
"We can't give up the district without a fight. Nobody else seems willing to, so I said, 'OK, I'll do it,' " Sadun, 43, said.
The first hurdle is a state law that says write-in candidates can participate only if they pay the filing fee ($3,125 in a U.S. House race) or get petition signatures (500 in this case).
Sadun is going the petition route and faces a Sept. 3 deadline. Any registered voter living in the district can sign a petition for one write-in candidate per race.
Among those interested and intrigued by Sadun's long-shot effort is Washington County Democratic Chairman Duane Olney. Washington County is in the district.
"People need a choice," Olney said. "It will be difficult, yes, but it is not impossible."
In addition to Sadun's effort, other potential write-in candidates are trying to get on the ballot.
I'll get back to the issue of needing a choice in a minute. For now, I'm trying to understand what it means to be a write-in candidate. The relevant laws can be found here. My non-lawyerly reading of them suggests to me that only those who've jumped through the official hoops will have their write-in votes certified and thus counted. As such, "other potential write-in candidates are trying to get on the ballot" is misleading, since by definition write-in candidates' names don't appear on the ballot. They want to ensure that the voters who do write them in get their votes counted. Does that sound right to you?
Now here's a question for the election judges in my audience: How do the eSlate machines handle write-ins? Do you have to make a special request when you present your voter's reg card? If there's been a spot for "Other (please specify)" on my ballots in the past, I've not noticed it.
As for the question of providing a choice, I'm certainly glad that the GOP runoff next Tuesday may not be the final word. But I have to ask: Why are we just now trying to get a Democrat on the ballot?
Sadun, who has never sought elected office, said it's important for him to be something more than the traditional write-in candidate making a quixotic effort."I've been figuring from the start the only way a write-in candidacy can be taken seriously is if it is the de facto Democratic nominee, not if he is one guy running as a write-in candidate," said Sadun, who has been making the rounds at local Democratic functions.
[...]
Sadun, having looked at the numbers, said he has concluded that "a Democrat cannot win this."
But, he added, "A Republican can lose this, and Streusand and McCaul are off to a good start" toward that end.
I'm sure he's right about the magnitude of the challenge. Whether he succeeds at getting qualified or not, though, the fact that he'll be a write-in candidate is in my mind a failure of the state Democratic Party and all of the relevant county parties. I simply cannot believe that between Travis and Harris Counties, there wasn't at least one activist type who'd have jumped at the chance to run in CD 10 if he or she could have gotten some logistical and financial support. I'm not talking about serious-chance-of-winning kind of support, since that would clearly be a poor investment. Just some logistical support to navigate the candidate filing process and a list of names of friendly contacts. This district may be heavily Republican, but there's still going to be thousands of Democrats living there who deserve a reason to go to the polls in November. How are you ever going to grow your base if you don't feed and water the base you've already got?
This is an outrage.
A gasp of disbelief, a sad shake of the head and a feeling of general disgust.That's how San Marcos residents reacted Saturday morning at the sight of graffiti spray-painted on the still under construction Hays County Veterans Memorial.
Sometime overnight, someone used yellow spray paint to write "Kill Bush" on a section of the memorial where names of local veterans are displayed on a sloping wall. The same slogan, along with others, was repeated on the back of the memorial.
I don't know or care what was the motivation for this. Defacing and destroying property is never an appropriate or acceptable way to express a political viewpoint. Whoever did this should be ashamed, and I hope will get caught.
For those who would like to help:
Donations to help complete the marker can still be made, and are indeed more crucial now as clean-up will add to the overall cost. Contributions can be mailed to: Hays County Veterans Memorial, P.O. Box 1503, San Marcos, TX, 78667-1503.
Via El Gato.
I admit it. I was a total Strat-O-Matic geek as a kid. Had all the games, played in face-to-face and play-by-mail leagues - explaining to Mom why I had to spend an hour on the phone with some guy in Wisconsin making trades was always fun - and wasted way too many sunny afternoons poring over the cards looking for insight. And boy oh boy do I remember the utter bliss of seeing that big padded manila envelope with my name on it in the mail. I stopped playing in college, and more recently sold all of my old collections to other players, with my buddy Tony (who introduced me to the game in the first place) as card broker - made some decent money for them, too. I don't have anything resembling the time to get involved with Strat gaming again, but yeah, I do miss it.
I'm getting all verklempt just thinking about it. Give me a minute here.
(Via TFG.)
Rob and I don't see eye to eye on the light rail line, but he asks a decent question about its reported ridership numbers: Where is Metro getting its figures from?
Naively, I'd assume that they start with the ticket sales from their automated machines, and do some extrapolation from there. I've only ever bothered to buy single-trip tickets, so I haven't looked closely enough to see what other options there are. For instance, I know there's a day pass, but is there a week or month pass? You have to make some assumption about how many times a day pass rider boards, after all. I presume the same would be true for longer-lasting passes, if they exist. In each case, here is where the mathematical mojo is at work. What's their model? Two rides per day pass? More?
My experience so far, all of which has been mid- to late-morning, is that the trains have been fairly full. It's certainly the case that every time I drive past the Smithlands station (one stop north of Reliant Stadium), the waiting area is well populated. It's pretty convenient for me to take from work into the Medical Center or downtown when I've got a daytime errand to run. Driving is a bit faster, but not having to find and pay for a place to park more than makes up for it to me.
I do believe that the ridership numbers are as good as or better than originally projected, but I'd feel better about that if I knew what their methodology for counting it up was.
These things really do write themselves sometimes.
Gov. Rick Perry would like to call a special session on school finance to begin in the middle of this month, spokeswoman Kathy Walt indicated Monday.But she said that Perry hadn't yet decided if he would call lawmakers back to Austin, despite widespread speculation that the governor's only remaining decision was when, not if.
"No decision has been made on a date or whether even to call a special session," Walt said.
[...]
The spokeswoman said the governor, who visited Houston on Monday to continue a series of private meetings with business leaders, was still seeking consensus on a plan for reducing school property taxes and improving classroom quality.
Perry wants to limit increases in property tax reappraisals for residential property, lower tax rates and allow property taxes on businesses to be treated differently from homeowners' taxes.
The proposals have drawn fire from business groups who fear they would result in a larger share of the tax load being transferred to businesses.
The governor, in private meetings, has floated an increase in the state cigarette tax and legalization of video lottery terminals at racetracks as new revenue sources for education. But he has said he opposes any major state tax increase.
Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and the Senate have been quietly promoting a new, broad-based business tax to include many service industries that they believe aren't carrying their fair share of the state's tax load.
Dewhurst has said there is support for that idea in the House, but Speaker Tom Craddick has been mum on the subject, at least publicly.
Just a reminder for all of those who see some kind of hard and fast deadline in April for the calling of a special session: Exactly 11 months ago today, on May 6, 2003, the State Senate unanimously passed a bill to redo school financing by increasing and expanding the sales tax. The same legislation also provided a cap on property tax appraisals. Governor Perry summarily rejected it, as did Speaker Tom Craddick, who wanted more time to "study" the issue.
Well here we are, nearly a year later, and we're essentially no closer to a solution than we were in those heady days just before Tom DeLay hijacked the legislative agenda. I don't endorse Dewhurst's plan, but anything that can get unanimous support has to be considered a good starting point for the kind of "consensus" that our only Governor says he wants. The blame for the lack of that "consensus" and for any discernable progress on this issue falls squarely on his shoulders, for surely Craddick would have fallen in line if Perry had taken Dewhurst's proposals seriously. Maybe it was his ego at being upstaged, maybe it was blind ideology causing him to choke on any kind of tax increase, maybe it was just plain obstinacy, but the fact remains that we have nothing to show for these last eleven months but another useless study telling us what we already knew and a lot of baloney from the Governor's office.
For those of you who are wondering why we bothered with this Robin Hood system in the first place, the Express News has a short overview of its effects. And for a different yet familiar suggestion, check out Carlos Guerra.
A little diversion from the Stakeholder:
Roll Call is having a little contest, "Speakerology," to see who can garner the most votes from citizens for Speaker of the House. The final round is between Republican Roy Blunt and Democrat Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, and Blunt's hometown paper has already given him a hand. This contest is less than deadly serious, but it would be nice to blow the GOP out. Take a look at Schakowsky's site if you want before you vote, she's awesome.Here's how it works:
1) In this Championship game, Jan is running against Republican Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO)
2) You need to e-mail your vote to: afterthoughts@rollcall.com All you need to do is write "Future Speaker" in the Subject line, and then write "I vote for Jan Schakowsky for Speaker" as your message.
3) SEND YOUR E-MAIL ASAP. Do it by 5 p.m. Tuesday, April 6.
Bloggers give us a hand if you can spare the space, we should be able take this one easy- we'll be glad to give everybody a shout-out when the results come in.
As noted, this is not exactly a meaningful exercise, but if you're feeling adrift now that the NCAA men's tournament is over, this may help distract you for a few minutes. So take a second and drop a line.
I'm reading this article about the differences between Andrea Yates and Deanna Laney, and my jaw is still hanging open after finishing this section:
Dr. Park Dietz, the nationally noted psychiatrist who testified that Yates knew her actions were wrong and therefore wasn't insane under state law, testified last week that Laney was a "textbook" case of insanity.He concluded that psychotic delusions made Laney incapable of knowing right from wrong during the killings -- the legal standard in Texas for insanity.
Dietz called Laney's description of her actions "the most consistent accounting" he had ever seen in more than a thousand criminal insanity evaluations.
"This is not like the criminals I generally get to see," he said.
Dietz considered the sources of Yates' and Laney's promptings to kill in determining whether they knew right from wrong. With Laney, it was God. With Yates, it was Satan.
Dietz testified that Laney, who interprets the Bible literally and believes that God is infallible, believed she was right to kill her children because God would never order her to do wrong.
But he concluded that Yates must have known murdering her five children was wrong if Satan ordered her to do it. He also saw Yates' attempts to conceal her murder plans as a sign that she knew it was wrong.
Wow. Just wow.
I know we're talking about legal insanity here, which is not the same as mental illness. I still have a hard time believing that the identity of the voices in these poor women's heads could be a determining factor. David Berkowitz claimed to be taking orders from his neighbor's dog. Where would that have fit in Dr. Dietz' spectrum?
I just don't know what to say any more.
UPDATE Ginger notes that she called this in the comments here. Obviously, I was too gobsmacked to remember that.
It's probably unnecessary, but after the Kos/Kerry kerfuffle, I've decided to update my Blog Policies page to cover the (in my mind unlikely) possibility that someone will attempt to make another party responsible for my words or the words of a commenter here. Feel free to borrow the idea, or to mock me for my hubris.
Interesting article on how Vietnamese-Americans view the 2004 Presidential election.
The older Vietnamese -- the ones who fought alongside American troops in South Vietnam and then fled to America after the communists took over -- pay close attention to American presidential politics, particularly when it comes to their native country.These Vietnamese vets do not appear to feel much affinity with Kerry the war hero, as some American vets say they do. Unlike other Americans, for whom Vietnam is mostly a memory, some Vietnamese-Americans continue to dream of overthrowing the communist government in their homeland.
Their opinions of Kerry and Bush have been formed by more recent events.
"The Vietnamese people are not happy with Kerry," said Binh Nguyen, who heads the Houston office of the Vietnamese-American Public Affairs Committee, or VPAC. The reason, he and many others say, is House Resolution 2833.
In 2001, the United States House of Representatives, by a vote of 410 to 1, passed a bill that would link U.S. aid to Vietnam to the improvement of human rights conditions in the country. But the bill was blocked in the Senate the following year by Kerry, who was then chair of the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs.
In a statement at the time, Kerry said he believed it was better to push for human rights through engagement with Vietnam. Not mincing his words, the senator took on the Vietnamese then protesting near his office, noting that HR 2833 would "strengthen the hand of the Vietnamese hard-liners who have never wanted the United States involved in Vietnam."
Other Vietnam war vets, including Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, have also called for improving ties with Vietnam. And many foreign policy experts share Kerry's belief that engagement is the best way to bring human rights reforms, economic prosperity and democracy to countries like Vietnam.
But Kerry's position on Vietnam is difficult to reconcile with his position on Cuba, where he supports continuing the trade embargo. While he criticizes "Vietnamese hard-liners," he courts Cuban hard-liners for his presidential campaign.
"He thinks we are not an important minority," laments Nguyen. "We'd like to have our perspective known to him, but we haven't had the chance."
That's a shame, and I think this is an example of the effect of Florida and its electoral votes on rational policymaking. I think Kerry did the right thing with HR 2833, but didn't follow through on it with Cuba. I can understand it from a crass political perspective, but it's too bad nonetheless.
Speaking of Cuba, this is stuff I didn't really know:
The discrepancy between Vietnamese and Cubans cannot be explained by simple demographics. There are more Vietnamese than Cubans in America, but since Cubans have lived here longer, they are likely to have more registered voters.Geography offers the best explanation. When the Cubans fled their native island around 1960, they settled in Miami, a small city they eventually dominated. When the Vietnamese exiles arrived 15 years later, the U.S. government forced them to settle throughout the country. The unspoken goal was to avoid the creation of a Vietnamese equivalent of Miami.
The Vietnamese did eventually concentrate in areas like Orange County and San Jose, Calif.; Houston; Seattle; and New Orleans. But they have five or six centers, as compared with one for the Cubans. And the Vietnamese happen to have settled mostly in states that are not in play in this election. There are not enough of them in California to keep Kerry from winning there, and their votes don't much matter in Texas, a state Bush will almost certainly take anyway.
Not clear to me from this article is how these folks feel about Bush. Are they single-issue voters who will pull the lever for Bush because of HR 2833? Are they reluctant supporters, or perhaps not really supporters at all and may vote for Kerry anyway because he's better on other issues? Alas, we don't know from this.
Here's a poll that shows John Kerry with a sizeable lead among Hispanic voters in his race against President Bush.
The presumptive Democratic nominee held a 58 percent to 33 percent lead over Bush among voters who identify themselves as Hispanic in a poll for The Miami Herald. The survey of 1,000 likely voters was conducted March 29-31 and had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.2 percentage points.Despite the advantage, strategists say Kerry must hold Bush's support among Hispanic-Americans to less than 35 percent to have a shot of winning the White House in November. Bush narrowly won the presidency in part by taking a sliver of the traditionally Democratic Hispanic base and drawing 35 percent of its vote in 2000.
"The Hispanic vote is borderline for Kerry and it's borderline for the president," said pollster John Zogby of Zogby International, which conducted the poll. "Nothing is going to make this one easy to predict."
There are several points that need to be made here:
- I've said it before and I'll say it again: Hispanic voters are not a monolithic bloc. Look at this chart, which tracked self-proclaimed party affiliation among different types of Hispanics in the 2000 election. Until we can answer the question "How is Kerry doing against Bush among specific subsets of Hispanic Americans, such as Cubans, Puerto Ricans, and Mexicans?" we will not have a truly clear picture of the data.
- The 35% magic number for President Bush is predicated on a specific assumption about turnout among whites, blacks, and Hispanics. Clearly, the greater the proportion of Hispanic voters in November, the greater the support Bush will need among them. A big part of Bush's strategy has been registering and turning out white evangelicals. The more of that he gets, the less he needs Hispanic support.
- Obviously, Hispanic support and turnout will play a bigger role in some states (like New Mexico and Florida, to name two) than in others. Again, until we have some idea of how this is in those swing states, we have a muddled picture.
- Check out the New Democratic Network's Democratas Unidos campaign and consider making a contribution if you want to help.
Via Political Wire.
UPDATE: More from NDN on their Hispanic outreach program.
Deanna Laney, the East Texas woman who stoned two of her sons to death and injured a third, was found not guilty by reason of insanity on Friday, meaning that her jury found her to be not quite the same as Andrea Yates, for whatever the reason. Jeralyn spots a reason that I didn't know about.
Deanna Laney was tried by a Tyler, Texas jury that was not qualified as a death-penalty jury because the state didn't seek the death penalty in her case. Andrea Yates' jury was a death-qualified jury. Studies show that death qualified juries are more likely to convict in the guilt phase. We think it's likely death qualified jurors are also less likely to find a defendant not guilty by reason of insanity.
Another reason to thank our DA, Chuck Rosenthal.
For those of you who think that Mrs. Laney is getting a free pass, look again.
State law allows Laney to be committed to a maximum security state hospital. Medical evaluations will dictate when she will be released. She will remain at the Smith County Jail until a hearing regarding her transfer.
She'll be locked up, possibly for the rest of her life, until she is deemed to be fully cured of the mental illness that drove her to commit this horrible crime. Not a fate that I'd want awaiting me.
Just a quick update from the weekend on the TAB/TRM investigations: Travis County DA Ronnie Earle has released a ton of documents pursuant to Andy Taylor's nuisancy Open Records Requests. I'll say this for Taylor: He sure does put the zeal into a zealous defense. Earle is also asking AG Greg Abbott for an opinion about some other documents and whether they are covered under the Open Records request or not. One thing to note:
Part of Earle's investigation focuses on one of Abbott's 2002 campaign consultants, John Colyandro, who also was the executive director of Texans for a Republican Majority. Colyandro's activities with TRM have been the subject of numerous grand jury subpoenas.In a civil lawsuit deposition, Colyandro also has admitted talking to executives of the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, which ran about $1.5 million in commercials attacking Abbott's Democratic opponent, Kirk Watson. The LEAA ads do not appear to be part of Earle's investigation.
In another potential conflict in handling Earle's appeal, Abbott last year hired TAB lawyer Taylor to represent the state in defending a congressional redistricting plan passed by the Republican-dominated Legislature. Taylor also at one time represented TRM in a lawsuit against it for the same activity involved in the grand jury investigation.
When reporters asked Earle if he was concerned that Abbott would share confidential documents with Taylor or Colyandro, he said he has to trust that Abbott will handle his request for confidentiality appropriately.
"Investigations such as this that go to the heart of the integrity upon which our institutions of government are based, require everybody to take a test," Earle said.
The main thrust of attack lately against Earle is that his investigation is politically motivated. We'll see if the same charge can be levelled against Greg Abbott.
Roughly a year ago at this time, I wrote the following:
My first reaction to the news that Gary Hart has a blog was "Wow! It's so cool that a possible Presidential candidate can reach voters this way!"My second reaction was that my first reaction was at least slightly nuts. For all of the boosting that folks like Jeralyn Merritt have given to a Hart 2004 candidacy, I think the fact that he's started blogging is a sure sign he won't run.
Why do I think this? Simple. It's not just that every word that he and his staffers write will be scrutinized by opponents for gotcha material, it's that everything he links to will also be tied to him. I guarantee that at some point someone will read a juicy quote from Hesiod or Atrios or someone like that to Candidate Hart and then ask him in a stern and moralistic tone if he "supports" such a thing, since after all his very own web page links to it. Heck, it wouldn't surprise me if they follow a link from one of those pages and try to tie that to Hart. There are enough dumbass blog-ignorant reporters, anchorpeople, and telepundits out there who wouldn't know or care enough to make any distinctions about that. You can't control anything that goes on outside your own blog's borders, and I think that's too big a liability for a serious candidate for national office. The potential for distraction and Wurlitzer-made scandal is too great. And, not to put too fine a point on it, Gary Hart will have enough of this sort of problem if he runs. He doesn't need to add to it.
Of course, not long after that we all became familiar with Howard Dean and his Blog For America, and now you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a dozen candidates who blog. Not to mention that Democrats in particular have plugged into the blog world with much success for raising funds, generating good publicity, and attracting volunteers. I've been a cheerleader for all of that. So on a certain level, this was a load of hooey.
On another level, sadly, this was dead on. We all know by now about what Kos said, and we all saw the feeding frenzy that followed. John Kerry's blog delinked Kos, several candidates who had BlogAds on his site pulled out, and there was even more bloviation than usual from such pristine guardians of the public morals as Charles Johnson and James Taranto. It would all be funny if it weren't so dreadfully tedious.
I'm not here to defend what Kos said. He's a big boy, and he can take care of himself. I've read his followup, and I accept his explanation. You are free to not accept it, or to think what you will of me for taking his explanation and moving on to other things. This is far from the first time that all of political blogging has gotten caught up in the game of Repudiate This, where one is deemed a prime example of moral rot if one does not condemn/delink/spit on/whatever a fellow partisan who's said or done something wrong. I've engaged in this pointless sport too many times already, and I refuse to do it any more. Every damn day more people than you and I can keep track of say things that are ugly, offensive, indefensible, racist, ignorant, genocidal, or worse - including, I might note, some people who do that sort of thing for a living. We can play this game all day every day, or we can accept the fact that some people really are ugly, offensive, ignorant racists, and some others, like Kos, are good people who've done a stupid thing. I trust that you are as capable as I of making these distinctions as needed for yourselves.
Matt Stoller's writeup on the incident is well worth reading, and it's spawned a tangential thought that I'll address in a subsequent post. I'm sorry to see (though obviously I totally understand) that Atrios feels the need to remove some of his fundraising links and to ask the Kerry campaign to delink him - Digby sums that up pretty well. I do think that by the next Presidential election, the mainstream will have moved to a place where people understand that linking to something is not the same as endorsing all or even most of it, since otherwise we could all accuse each other of being communists. For now, though, we're stuck with what we've got.
Opening Day was Saturday, and my perfect record as a coach remains unblemished. Unfortunately, that means we lost, 12-3. We had a bad first inning, nobody came close to hitting the ball until their second or third time up, and we didn't make any plays in the field.
Though it wasn't pretty to look at, there were some positives to take away. Our pitchers had good velocity and struck out a lot of batters while only walking a few. Honestly, I was a bit surprised that the other team made as much contact as they did against them. One of our kids, who hadn't really hit the ball all throughout practice, walked and scored in his first at bat, then made contact in his second. It was a popout to the second baseman, but he was justifiably excited (as were we all) by getting the bat on the ball. Progress is always incremental, and it's important to celebrate the milestones when they pass by.
What was most encouraging, though, was the realization that these kids can and will play better than they did this time. They know it, and we know it. Our penultimate practice on Tuesday was sloppy and mistake-filled, then we pulled it together and had a sharp practice on Thursday. I have hope that the same effect will take place again, for tomorrow's game.
One note from Thursday: We got our Twins caps, and as they were trying them on, one of the kids asked me about the cap I was wearing. I told them that it was the team cap for the Yakult Swallows and that I'd gotten it at a game in Tokyo. They were all duly impressed, though what they were most curious about was what kind of food one could get at Jingu Stadium. That in turn led to a debate over the merits of sushi. We're nothing if not a cosmopolitan group here.
So I was re-watching part of last week's "Sopranos" today, and one of the wiseguys uttered a line that got me thinking. He was talking about going to war against a rival captain, and his parting line to an ally was "And I predict the guys in the street, in Brooklyn and Queens, will greet us as effing heroes. It'll be easy." Now is it just me, or is anyone else reminded of a certain pre-Iraq prognostication by this? Anyone want to take bets on how accurate this assessment is? (NB: I haven't seen today's "Sopranos" yet, so no spoilers, please.)
Third parties struggle to make ballot
For whatever reason, three smaller political parties are having a tough time getting enough petition signatures to make sure their candidates are on the November ballot.The struggle with the petition drives comes after low voter support of Green and Libertarian candidates in 2002 prevented them from getting automatic placement on the 2004 ballot. Meanwhile, the 5-year-old Texas Reform Party is making its second effort to petition onto the ballot, having failed in 2000.
To get on the ballot without a petition drive, a party must receive at least 2 percent of the vote in the preceding governor's race or 5 percent in another statewide race.
Libertarians have achieved that minimum seven times since 1980. Since at least 1994, the party benefited when Democrats skipped some statewide races, leaving a void on the ballot. That also helped the Greens in 2000 after they first petitioned their way onto the ballot and got a high enough percentage in some races for a guaranteed position in 2002.
But in 2002, Democrats ran a full slate of statewide candidates. Though they lost every race, they absorbed enough voters to prevent the Greens and Libertarians from reaching the threshold.
This year, parties or independent candidates seeking ballot status must collect 64,076 signatures, or 1 percent of all the Texas votes cast in the 2000 presidential election.
So how are they doing?
The petition process started March 10, the day after the Democratic and Republican primaries. Green and Libertarian party officials say they are behind schedule in getting the required number of signatures, which must be from eligible voters who did not vote in either party's primary last month.Earl Gerhard, co-chairman of the Harris County Green Party, estimated that his party's volunteers are collecting less than half the signatures they need each day to reach the goal.
Though he expects the pace to pick up as the deadline approaches, Gerhard said he is not certain the party will have a place on this year's ballot.
Gerhard said many don't sign the petition out of concern that supporting a third party may take away votes from a Democrat, as it did in 2000 when Nader's Green Party candidacy was believed to have taken votes from Democrat Al Gore.
"The whole political thing about the third parties being spoilers have caused interest to wane," Gerhard said. "It has taken a little more energy and drive to get going."
Greens are split this year about Nader's independent candidacy. Some Greens are collecting petitions for Nader while trying to get the Green Party candidates on the ballot.
"We are pushing the same positions as Ralph Nader," said volunteer Don Cook, a retired parole officer in Houston. "The more candidates talking about universal health care, the financing of campaigns and the power of corporations, the better."
Gerhard said Greens are not worried about the future of their party in Texas.
"We're young, and we realize we're not going to get people elected," Gerhard said. "But the fact that we're out there, organizing and getting involved means the future will look better."
David DeLamar, chairman of the Texas Libertarian Party, expressed more concern about the ramifications of failing to make the ballot.
"It would mean we would have to start another costly petition drive in 2006, which would be a big setback," DeLamar said.
That sound you hear is my heart breaking for them, especially for the Greens. I've voted for a couple of Greens and Libs in the past against otherwise unopposed Republicans, but I doubt I'll do that again any time soon.
How about you-know-who? How's it going for him?
Kevin Zeese, spokesman for Nader's campaign, said he is confident Nader will get on the ballot. Besides some Greens, Nader is getting help from some members of the Texas Reform Party, which is mounting a petition drive of its own."We have gotten more volunteers, more media and more money than we had in 2000," Zeese said. "We feel like we have the resources to make it happen."
Pfui. Even though his presence on this ballot won't make any difference in the overall election, I hope he falls short. And may the same be true everywhere else.
Looks like the CD 28 Democratic primary has finally concluded, pending the inevitable lawsuit.
A request for a second recount of disputed Webb County ballots in the 28th Congressional District was rejected Friday by Texas Democratic Party officials, who said a courtroom, not a counting room, is the best place to resolve the clouded election."There is little doubt that something sketchy is going on in Zapata and Webb counties," said Texas Democratic Party Chairman Charles Soechting. "I feel strongly that there ought to be a recount. That recount should occur under the watchful eye of a judge, and any comments about how extra ballots appeared should be made under oath."
The decision was the latest development in a dramatic Democratic primary contest between incumbent U.S. Rep. Ciro Rodriguez and Laredo opponent Henry Cuellar.
Cuellar used the opportunity to restate his claim to victory, while Rodriguez continued preparations to challenge the results through a lawsuit that is expected to be filed next week.
"(Another recount) would have delayed the filing of our lawsuit, and we want to get that in as quickly as possible," said John Puder, a Rodriguez spokesman. "At this point, the people who are answering these questions about what happened (should) have to do it under oath in court."
In a statement released Friday, Cuellar said he was "honored that the voters of the 28th Congressional District have chosen me to carry the Democratic Party's banner this fall in the general election."
Pending potential legal action, the recount is considered an official record of the election, meaning that Cuellar is the winner at this point in the race, said Mike Lavigne, a spokesman from the Texas Democratic Party.
But the fight between the two former friends and Texas House colleagues in the 11-county district appeared far from over.
If there really were irregularities in Zapata County, Ciro Rodriguez will have his chance to prove it. Until then, it looks like this is the first example I can recall of a recount changing the outcome of an election.
I lived in San Antonio for four years while in college. It's a great city, someplace I'd seriously consider living if I had to leave Houston, but I can't honestly say I've ever thought of it as a good city to walk in.
Mayor Ed Garza hiked four miles to work Friday along a route that featured aged, often crumbling sidewalks, one or two makeshift foot trails and several malfunctioning crosswalks.The 75-minute trek came a day after Garza accepted an award designating San Antonio as one of the best cities for walking.
"Although some see us as an ideal walking city," Garza said, "we still have a lot of work to do."
He started down a stretch of San Antonio Avenue that has no sidewalks. Garza's modest olive-green home sits on a corner lot north of Woodlawn Lake Park.
The mayor staged the walk to support National Walk to Work Day.
Prevention magazine and the American Podiatric Medical Association named San Antonio one of the 12 best cities for walking because of air quality, 157 miles of natural creekways and varied topography.
But in many areas, hoofing it from home to work proves frustrating because of cracked or nonexistent sidewalks and bad street conditions. The long-standing problem: The city has little money for streets and sidewalks.
As a result, shabby infrastructure often tops the list of complaints to City Council members.
I guess if your criteria is interesting places to walk, San Antonio is up there. But I have to say, the first real instance of culture shock I experienced as a transplanted New Yorker was the realization, as I was walking from the Trinity campus to check out a B&B off Broadway north of Hildebrand in Alamo Heights, that there weren't any sidewalks. Seeing deer and antelope playing on the campus amidst roaming buffalo would have been less of a shock to me.
Anyway, SA suffers from a certain amount of Houston-itis in that it is rapidly expanding outward, a lot of people live in cul-de-sacs where there's one route to a highway or main road, and as noted, there's a real lack of sidewalks. They're pretty much heading to where we are now. I get boggled by how much farther out things are now compared to when I was there, and there's no sign of any slowing down on that front.
By the way, someone needs to explain to me just how San Antone got on this list. I only see ten cities listed here, and the River City doesn't even appear to be in their readers' poll. What's up with that?
Whatever else Governor Perry may have going for him, he does have the full support of his party's infrastructure, at least publicly.
The head of the state Republican Party rushed to the defense of Gov. Rick Perry on Friday and chided GOP state Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn for criticizing his leadership -- or lack thereof.State Republican Party chairwoman Tina Benkiser singled out the comptroller's attacks on Perry in a letter to members of the State Republican Executive Committee.
Though she didn't mention Strayhorn by name -- instead calling her "one of our Republican elected officials" -- the reference was unmistakable: She quoted from a Star-Telegram news article about Strayhorn's attacks on Perry.
"These types of attacks, described by a news report as 'from the left,' do not further the policy debate in any substantive way and only serve to generate negative media attention for our entire Republican family," Benkiser said. The Star-Telegram article was attached to the letter.
One member of the Republican executive committee who got the letter, Roy Casanova of San Antonio, said Strayhorn had done state leaders an "injustice by taunting them."
In our more fevered imaginations, some of us bloggers - me, Greg, and BOR, to name three - have speculated about Comptroller Strayhorn switching parties in order to run for Governor. The main reason why I think this is possible is simply that Strayhorn will be treated like a dead rat on the kitchen table if she challenges Perry in the Republican primary. I just don't see how she can win there. She won't get funding, she won't have a real base to work with, and she will have to contend with Perry's fairly high approval ratings among Republican voters.
The only way I think she can make any kind of real challenge is from the other side of the aisle. She'd have to make a convincing statement about "the party abandoning me", she'd have to do a lot of work to convince the state Dems that she's for real (and she might have to fend off a primary challenge here from someone like Jim Turner), and she'd still be a longshot to win. However small, though, she would have a chance, and that's better than no chance no matter how you slice it.
Look, she's (I think) 63 now (can't find her blasted date of birth anywhere). How many chances is she gonna get to run for Governor? Better to throw the dice now than wait six years and maybe watch some up-and-comer zip past you. A lot would have to go right for her, but at least it could happen. Will it? Beats me. But it could.
Governor Perry apparently wants to call that special session on school finance reform some time in mid-April. He also wants to have a consensus on how to proceed before calling the session. Right now, these two desires are at odds with each other.
Dewhurst wants clear plan before session
Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst said Friday he hopes Gov. Rick Perry does not call a special session on school finance until there is consensus on a plan to cut property taxes and increase the state's share of funding."We're going to have to get into the details, sooner rather than later," Dewhurst told reporters after a speech to an educators' group.
Dewhurst said he does not know when Perry plans to start the session. But key lawmakers, including House Education Committee Chairman Kent Grusendorf, R-Arlington, have said they expect the session to begin mid-April.
Dewhurst also said the Senate wants significant property tax relief similar to the 50 percent reduction approved by the Senate last year in legislation that was not considered by the House.
"We want a permanent solution to school finance," said Dewhurst. "The last thing a lot of us want to do is go through a series of special sessions this year and next year."
Dewhurst said the plan the governor has talked about "seems to be an incremental plan in which local property tax relief is achieved over the years, provided there's a surplus."
Dewhurst said he thinks the House and Senate are close to an agreement on broadening the sales tax or business franchise tax to pay for major property tax reductions. But Perry has said he does not want a major tax bill.
Senate leaders scoff at Perry's plan
A school funding proposal circulated by Gov. Rick Perry takes a gradual approach that's unacceptable to senators and unfair to property taxpayers who need quick relief, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst said Friday."There are some here in Austin who want to improve education incrementally between today and 2007. And I've got to ask why," Dewhurst told the 24th Annual Association of Texas Professional Educators State Convention.
"Our homeowners and our businesses need property tax relief today."
Dewhurst, who presides over the Senate, told reporters later: "The Senate does not want to look at an incremental approach. We want a permanent solution to school finance."
He said Perry's proposal, which hasn't been publicly announced, appears incremental.
[...]
Senate Education Committee Chairwoman Florence Shapiro, R-Plano, said by phone that Dewhurst's assessment of the Senate position is "absolutely correct."
[...]
ewhurst said the additional property tax relief would occur under Perry's plan "provided that there's a surplus." Shapiro said it would depend on "a good, strong economy."
Dewhurst said he met with Perry on Friday morning. Shapiro said she hasn't spoken with Perry in three weeks.
"He (Perry) knows I am not supporting a split tax roll. He knows I want significant property tax relief," Shapiro said. "He knows that I'm looking at some of the things we did in the Senate as a model for what we want to do in the special session."
Dewhurst addresses school finance
"I want to conclusively solve this once and for all," Dewhurst said.Dewhurst's remarks to the educators group contrasts with a statement made last week by House Appropriations Committee Chairman Talmadge Heflin, R-Houston, who said any fix to the school finance system should be phased in over the next four years.
Any major overhaul of the school finance would require an equally major overhaul of Texas' tax structure, especially the levies that target business and industry. Perry, who spoke at the same legislative conference where Heflin spoke, said he would be reluctant to make major adjustments to business taxes.
Dewhurst criticizes Perry's school plan
Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst insisted Friday that the Senate wants an overhaul of the state's troubled school finance system, putting himself at odds with the gradual fix being pushed by Gov. Rick Perry and others.Mr. Dewhurst, signaling key differences with Mr. Perry as lawmakers prepare for a special session this month, also said he sees little support among lawmakers for the governor's tax plan, a copy of which was obtained by The Dallas Morning News on Friday.
[...]
The lieutenant governor, who presides over the Senate, also said he sees almost no support for the split property tax approach that Mr. Perry has pitched in private meetings with state lawmakers. Leading business groups also have opposed the idea.
"I think most of the members in the House and Senate seem to be favoring either the sales tax approach or reform of the business franchise tax," he said.
Actually, I take it back. There is a consensus right now. It's just that the consensus we have is that the Governor has no clue, no plan, and no hope. Too bad the special session won't address any of those points.
Finally got around to taking some pix of those giant presidential heads, along with Rob, Ted, and non-blogging buddies Steve and Patrick. They're below the More link for those of you (and you know who you are) who have a morbid interest in things like that. I'm going to try to make a habit of taking pictures of oddball things in and around my neighborhood and posting them on Fridays. We'll see if I can stick to it.
LBJ and the Big Dog. The trucks behind them give you an idea of the size.
Truman and Ike.
Inside the artist's workshop.
Hoover, Grant, and Nixon - a triumverate of failure.
UPDATE: Several people say that the middle statue is Rutherford Hayes, not US Grant. They're probably right, but if so it ruins the whole "triumverate of failure" thing. Such is life, I guess.
TR guards the door.
I don't quite recognize these five. Leave a comment if you think you can identify any of them.
UPDATE: See comments for various attempts at identifying these five.
Bear this in mind as the Bush administration starts to make its push for tort "reform".
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - It was the anecdote that politically seemed too good to be true. And it was. Treasury Secretary John Snow was set to say on Friday that "frivolous lawsuits" had caused the U.S. ladder industry to fold."There is not a single company left in the United States that makes ladders. The lawsuits got to be too much for the ladder industry," read comments Snow prepared for a conference sponsored by the Small Business Administration.
But when the department discovered there were some 11 producers selling $850 million worth of ladders in the United States, those words were left unspoken and deleted from a speech text posted later on the department's Web site.
A Treasury official said the statement was in error.
"The buck stops with me," said Treasury spokesman Rob Nichols on Monday. "That is my error. That is a factual inaccuracy that I missed during the fact-checking process."
The Bush administration has been urging Congress to pass measure to curb lawsuits against businesses. Tort reform is part of President Bush's preelection economic plan.
"I'm really disappointed," said Ron Pietrzak, executive director of the Chicago-based American Ladder Institute, which includes 11 domestic ladder makers and has a Web site at: www.americanladderinstitute.org.
The group said the U.S. ladder industry generates sales of more than $850 million annually.
At least this time, they didn't decide that an inconvenient fact shouldn't kill a good story and run with it anyway. I'll give them credit for that much. Via Trivial Pursuits.
Christine asks "Do we need yet another way to read blogs?" in reference to Kinja the self-styled "Weblog guide". It looks like a one-stop shop for various RSS feeds on different subjects, and I think Ginger nails it in the comments:
This is weblogs for dummies. The goal is not to get people who know what they're doing to use Kinja, it's to get people who aren't blog readers to try blog-reading by providing digests of the "big name blogs" they hear about and a few others.
Sounds about right. I'd love to know how they picked the liberal blogs that they're currently featuring. They had Atrios and Josh Marshall in the mix last night, along with some decidedly less-trafficked sites, which is fine though again I wonder what their methodology was. To amplify something else Ginger mentioned, if Julian Sanchez won't like being called a liberal, Jim Henley's gonna flip out. Surely there would be plenty of good choices for a "Libertarian" category, starting with those two. Why insist on shoehorning poliblogs into a two-dimensional space?
And OK, I admit it: I want to know how to submit blogs for their consideration. Like, say, this one. Is that so wrong?
UPDATE: Well, according to my referral logs, at least one person is using Kinja to read this site. So therefore I pronounce it a Good Thing.
I haven't really been following the trial of Deanna Laney, the East Texas woman on trial for killing two of her children by stoning them to death (a third child survived), but I did notice that everyone's favorite professional witness, Dr. Park Dietz, had made an appearance.
"In a series of experiences she came to believe God told her to kill her children," Dietz said. "She was able to give detailed information on how god told her to kill her children."That detailed information was shown in a nearly hour long video tape of Dietz interview with Laney. It was the jury's first chance to hear from laney herself. While the video played for the jury, Laney sat staring into her lap, quietly crying. After the tape, lead defense attorney Buck Files tried to drill home the point that Dr. Dietz has never waivered in his findings.
"Do you have an opinion as to whether or not on may 10, 2003 that Deanna Laney, did not know that her conduct was wrong?" Files asked.
"I do have an opinion," answered Dietz.
"What is that opinion?" asked Files.
"It's my opinion at that time, because of her severe mental disease, Mrs. Laney did not know that her conduct was wrong," concluded Dietz.
Despite the fact that Dr. Dietz was hired by prosecutors for this case, District Attorney Matt Bingham almost seemed to spar with him a little on his answers.
"So then your conclusions are absolute?" Bingham asked. "She was absolutely insane?"
"Whether she was insane is for the jury to determine," answered Dietz.
"The point is, here's a lady that's killed two of her kids and injured a third. You cannot sit on that stand and say absolutely that she did not know her conduct was wrong," commented Bingham. "You can say in your opinion, but not absolute."
"It is my opinion," answered Dietz."
I would dearly love to know what distinguishes Deanna Laney from Andrea Yates in Dr. Dietz' mind. Maybe there is a crucial distinction that I'm missing, I don't know. But I sure would like to know.
This Tyler Morning Telegraph article does a really good job of covering the history and debate over Texas' oft-reviled insanity defense law. Andrea Yates makes an appearance here as well.
George Parnham, Mrs. Yates' defense attorney, has become one of Texas' most outspoken critics of the state's insanity standard. He argued that Mrs. Yates became psychotic as the result of postpartum depression, and thought killing her children would save them from Satan. He says he has spoken to F.R. "Buck" Files, Mrs. Laney's defense attorney, but is not part of the defense team."We go back to the word 'know,'" Parnham says. "Does 'know' mean a perception on the part of the sick person that society would view her actions as being illegal or wrong, but she knows them to be right? The danger is that what we do with our (Texas) standard is impose our own logic - our own logic that is unfettered by mental disease. If you're psychotic, you live in a different real world."
Parnham says that in a "utopian atmosphere," mentally ill killers could get treatment without a jury trial. "But I don't know if we're ever going to reach that," he says.
Not in my lifetime, I expect.
One last thing, from the Chron story about the Laney trial:
Prosecutors have struggled to discredit their own psychiatric witnesses to prove that Deanna Laney knew her actions were wrong and is guilty.Above all, they tried to convince jurors that regardless of whether Deanna Laney believed she was doing right by God, she had to have known she was doing wrong by state law. Her first call, prosecutors pointed out, was to 911 to summon authorities.
Andrea Yates also called 911. Once again I ask: What's the difference between these two cases?
Just a few links to keep you on top of what's happening. First, Texans for Public Justice connects some dots between the Bush Pioneers and the various corporate sponsors of the 2003 Lege. Melanie Sloan has sent a letter to all members of the House which requests that the Ethics Committee open an investigation into the Westar case, in particular the actions of Tom DeLay, Billy Tauzin, and Smokey Joe Barton (press release here). Finally, the AusChron looks at the state GOP's overheated rhetoric about Travis County DA Ronnie Earle and the grand jury investigation into TRM and TAB. Happy reading.
Is Governor Perry about to call a special session on school finance reform for later this month? The DMN says Yes.
The long-awaited special legislative session on school finance will begin later this month – probably on April 19 – according to Capitol sources who said that Gov. Rick Perry has made up his mind to convene the session.No starting date has been set by the governor, but his aides have concluded the session should start after the Easter weekend and the primary runoff on April 13.
A spokeswoman for the governor said a decision has not yet been made on the date lawmakers will be summoned to Austin.
The governor continues to work on building the consensus needed to call a special session this spring," said Kathy Walt, the governor's press secretary.
While Mr. Perry has said he wants consensus by legislative leaders on a proposal to fix the troubled funding system, that consensus will be on broad goals rather than a specific plan, noted one Capitol staffer familiar with discussions among state leaders.
The governor is still pitching a limited school finance proposal that would end "Robin Hood" sharing of property taxes by splitting property tax rolls so that business and commercial property is taxed by the state while residential property continues to be taxed by school districts. Leading business groups, including the Texas Association of Business, are opposed to the idea.
In addition, Mr. Perry favors a slight property tax cut for homeowners and raising new money for schools through an increase in the state cigarette tax, legalization of video gambling machines at racetracks and closing of a loophole in the business franchise tax. His proposal would use the additional revenue to create new financial incentives for schools.
The Governor's office says No. Sort of, anyway.
AUSTIN - A spokesman for Gov. Rick Perry denied today that an April special session of the legislature would be called this week to overhaul Texas' school financing system.Gubernatorial spokesman Robert Black said an Associated Press story quoting unnamed sources is incorrect.
"The governor is not calling a special session today, nor does he have any intention of calling one this week," Black said.
Black said no decision has been made on calling a session, much less what dates in April would be the starting point if the session is called.
According to the Associated Press sources, however, Perry has told Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and House Speaker Tom Craddick that he will announce this week a special legislative session in mid-April.
Black declined to deny to AP that Perry made those comments to Dewhurst and Craddick.
"I'm not privy to his conversations,'' said spokesman Robert Black. "The governor speaks with the speaker and lieutenant governor these days literally on a daily basis.''
As denials go, that one isn't very strong. It's already Thursday, so the fact that he doesn't have "any intention of calling one this week" doesn't exactly ring in one's ears. I'd say this moves the odds of a session getting called soon in the 60-70% range. Hold on tight, it's gonna get bumpy.
Was this rule change really necessary?
On the last day of their spring meetings, NFL owners cracked down on premeditated celebrations by two or more players and the use of such "foreign objects" as cell phones and Sharpies anywhere on the field.As expected, the owners voted 31-1 Wednesday to penalize a team 15 yards if a player or players violate the rule. Players also will be fined as they have in the past.
Oakland was the only team to vote against what is basically an amended rule.
"We're not changing the rule; we're just enforcing it," said Atlanta general manager Rich McKay, co-chairman of the league's competition committee. "Now, a player can be fined and penalized for violating the rule."
The NFL says it's a violation of the rule if players perform anywhere on the field acts that include but are not limited to throat slash, machine gun salute, sexually suggestive gestures, prolonged gyrations or stomping on a team logo.
Also subject to a penalty if they're directed at an opponent are sack dances, home-run swing, incredible hulk, spiking the ball, spinning the ball, throwing or shoving the ball, pointing, pointing the ball, verbal taunting, military salute, standing over an opponent, or dancing.
"We voted for it," Texans general manager Charley Casserly said. "We don't think those kinds of celebrations have a place in the game. We're not opposed to individual celebrations as long as they're not taunting the opponent."
What's the big deal? Sure it's childish when a player does that stuff. So what? Isn't this supposed to be about entertainment? Are people not tuning in because Sam Horn stuck a cell phone in the goal post pads and made an ass of himself after scoring a touchdown? Have any sponsors (like, say, any of the male-performance "get back in the game" products) dropped the NFL because of this? Does anyone other than a few stuffed shirt sportswriters really care?
It's their game and they can do what they want. I'll still watch. And I admit, I'm bothered a lot less by this sort of thing than some (many?) people are. But for the life of me, I can't understand the need for official punishment of silliness. Seems to me that if the coaches thought it was a problem for their teams, it would have been stopped a long time ago. So why does the league care?
I'm beginning to think that I ought to just create a template for posts about when Comptroller Strayhorn rips the Governor a new one. For sure I'd get at least weekly usage out of it.
"It's time to stop the hemorrhaging. It's time to put children first," said Strayhorn in a speech to county administrators.Strayhorn said Perry should call lawmakers into a special session to address school finance and to use $583 million in unbudgeted funds to restore health care cuts made during the 2003 session. She noted that since September, 119,000 children have lost their coverage under the Children's Health Insurance Plan and that a new asset test being considered by the Health and Human Services Commission could throw thousands more off the program.
"It is unconscionable that we're dead last in percent of children on health insurance," said Strayhorn.
She criticized Perry, saying he let months of inactivity pass while the school system suffers.
"I say his learning curve should now be complete, and if not, we need new leadership willing not to delay, not to cajole, not to offer patchwork proposals packaged in lofty titles," said Strayhorn.
Throwing children off of the CHIP program ranks as the most egregious thing the legislature did last year (yes, even more than redistricting), and as this op-ed by Mayor White and County Judge Eckels makes clear, puts paid to the biggest lie from the 78th Lege, which was the "no new taxes" claim. (I've put the whole thing beneath the More link - it's good reading.) Maybe the state didn't directly raise any taxes, but by shirking its responsibilities it greatly increased the financial burdens of every city and county. One way or another, you're paying for it. And now they want to build off that success by restricting those cities' and counties' abilities to raise revenue. Be very, very afraid.
On a lighter note, the best part of Strayhorn-attacks-Perry stories to me is the response from whichever Perry flack drew the short straw that day:
Kathy Walt, press secretary to Perry, said the governor is working to build consensus for a special session on public schools."Never have shrill negative attacks or name-calling educated a child, created a job, cut property taxes or solved any problem," said Walt.
Is there a class you can take to learn how to say things like that with a straight face? I need to sign up for one of them.
Unhappy fourth birthday for CHIP in Texas
By ROBERT ECKELS and BILL WHITE
We are seriously concerned about the almost 20,000 Harris County children who have lost their health coverage under the Texas Children's Health Insurance Program, and we think others should be, too. Particularly local taxpayers. It's time to restore funding for this program.
Parents are telling stories about their inability to buy their children's medications for asthma or diabetes. If their children play sports, parents worry about what would happen if their kids break an arm. As enrollment in CHIP continues to drop, more children will go untreated for chronic conditions and then end up in crowded emergency rooms for care.
In Harris County, 19,971 children have lost their coverage since cuts took effect on Sept. 1, 2003 — enough children to pack Toyota Center. Statewide, more than 118,000 Texas children have been dropped from the CHIP program. If you could put them in Reliant Stadium, they would pack all 70,000 seats, then fill up the entire field and passageways before spilling out into the parking lots.
Parents of children who lost health insurance well understand the impact of cuts to CHIP. If you are a Harris County/Houston taxpayer, know that these cuts have an impact on you, too.
We are also concerned about the impact of these cuts on local taxpayers. For every $1 invested in CHIP, Texas receives $2.59 in federal matching dollars. As a result of CHIP cuts, Harris County alone will lose $139 million in state and federal matching dollars. This loss of funding shifts costs to health-care delivery systems and property tax payers.
Without any federal or state support, working families who lose CHIP coverage return to city or county health clinics or emergency rooms for care. That means local taxpayers pay 100 percent of the costs. Already, systems are feeling the burden. The Harris County Hospital District reports a $36 million reduction in funds because of cuts in CHIP
collections.
Cuts to preventive care put additional strain on overcrowded emergency rooms, already on divert-status more than 30 percent of the time. If local ERs are full of children without health insurance, there is a greater risk that trauma beds are not available to handle true emergencies. This, too, is costly for Harris County residents. According to the Harris County Hospital District, the cost of preventive treatment for a child's mild asthma attack ranges from $94 to $103 using oxygen or a nebulizer and medicines. Compare that to the $9,209 cost of treating an asthma patient who ends up in the Harris County Hospital District's emergency room with full symptoms that cause him/her to be hospitalized for an average stay of three days.
More than $469 million in state dollars are available right now for the restoration of health and human services. Much of this funding is from federal fiscal-relief funds provided to states because of budget shortfalls on health care. These funds should be used to restore health and human services, including CHIP.
The Campaign to Restore CHIP, a broad-based coalition of more than 1,200 organizations and individuals across Texas, is working for the full restoration of the Children's Health Insurance Program in Texas. The local effort is being spearheaded by the 16-county, 650-member, Gulf Coast CHIP Coalition. Priorities include restoring full eligibility to CHIP and restoring dental, vision and hospice services to the CHIP benefits package.
CHIP is a wise investment for Texas children and Texas taxpayers. All Texans should feel proud about the number of children we signed up for this insurance. Before cuts took effect, Texas had the most effective CHIP roll-out anywhere in the United States, with more than 500,000 children signed up for coverage from April 1, 2000, to Sept. 1, 2003.
April 1 is the fourth birthday of the Texas Children's Health Insurance Program. But, a pall has settled over the celebration. We believe the date should be "Restore CHIP Day." Give a gift to Texas taxpayers this year. Let's cut the cake, not the kids.
If Rep. Ciro Rodriguez was depending on the recount in Bexar County to pull him back up against Henry Cuellar, he's been disappointed. The recount of mail-in and provisional ballots cost him three more votes, which combined with a one-vote gain for Cuellar in Hays County puts him in a 201-vote hole. To say the least, he's not very happy about it.
"We feel very good, but the recount is not over," Cuellar spokesman Colin Strother said. "We are going to wait until the last vote is accurately counted."Meanwhile, a visibly angry Rodriguez reiterated his concerns over Tuesday's recounts in Zapata and Webb counties, which shattered his original post-primary lead of 145 votes.
"Something is happening and it's not correct and it's not appropriate," Rodriguez said at a Wednesday morning news conference.
Rodriguez, a four-term incumbent, plans to file a lawsuit Friday to contest the recount results, which his attorney, Buck Wood, called "totally inexplicable and fraudulent."
Strother called Rodriguez's claims "totally baseless" and accused the San Antonio native of schoolyard antics.
"The sour grapes, sore loser thing is not in the best interest of this district," Strother said. "That's how children react to distress. Congressmen are supposed to act with dignity and leadership."
Despite the sudden appearance of many extra votes for Cuellar and the cote count discrepancy, the Webb County Democratic Pary chairman makes a pretty good case that the fault lies in the original count (optical scan equipment is blamed) and not fraud, as the ballots have apparently been kept under lock and key since the start of early voting. Presumably, the inevitable lawsuit will suss all of that out.
There's another possible way that this thing gets resolved, and it's almost too bizarre to contemplate:
[St. Mary's University political scientist Larry Hufford] envisions a possible, if far-fetched, situation in which the election could be placed in the hands of a Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives.If the Rodriguez lawsuit results in an overturn of the recount, Cuellar would likely appeal and the court process could be lengthy. If the outcome is not decided by the November general election, the U.S. House can step in, Hufford said.
"Cuellar would win because (House Speaker Tom) DeLay and (President Bush strategist Karl) Rove would see to it that Ciro Rodriguez, who has a pretty liberal voting record, would not be seated," Hufford said.
Boy howdy if that ain't democracy for ya.
Byron has some more on this. Check the comments for a pretty good explanation of the reasons behind the animosity in this dispute.
UPDATE: The Laredo Morning Times has a pretty good account, which I'm reproducing beneath the More link, since it apparently won't be there after today. Via the Quorum Report.
Cuellar's lead increases after Bexar vote recount
BY TRICIA CORTEZ
Times staff writer
After the stunning Tuesday developments in the recount of Democratic primary ballots in Webb and Zapata counties, Laredoan Henry Cuellar increased his lead Wednesday by another four votes over Congressman Ciro Rodriguez of San Antonio.
He now leads Rodriguez by 201 votes in the 11-county congressional district.
After the Wednesday recount in Bexar County (mail-in and provisional ballots only) and Hays County, Cuellar had a net gain of four votes.
The recount, ordered by Cuellar last week, ends Thursday with the recount of ballots in Guadalupe and Comal counties.
Buck Wood, Austin attorney for Rodriguez, said Wednesday he will not file a lawsuit contesting the Webb and Zapata recount, until Webb finishes its re-recount of its ballots, expected to take place Sunday.
During a Tuesday afternoon recount, Webb election officials found an additional 115 ballots in the total number of ballots counted on election day (March 9) from the number hand-counted during the recount.
Roberto Balli, Webb County Democratic Chairman, said it was inaccurate for the news media to report that 115 ballots were "found."
"That is sensationalizing the issue. These ballots weren't lost or hidden somewhere and then found during the recount," Balli said.
What occurred, he said, is a discrepancy in the number of total ballots counted on election day versus the number of ballots hand counted in the recount.
While Webb officials found an additional 115 ballots on their hands, Cuellar picked up 177 extra votes, and Rodriguez picked up none.
That morning, in neighboring Zapata, election officials found an additional 304 votes, not ballots, during its recount. This allowed Cuellar to pick up an extra 237 votes, while Rodriguez picked up 67.
With these electoral developments in Webb and Zapata, Cuellar, who was previously trailing Rodriguez by 150 votes, was able to come from behind and take a 197-vote lead Tuesday. His margin swelled to 201 votes by Wednesday.
Wood, Rodriguez' attorney, is convinced fraud occurred.
"I've been doing this for 33 years, and nobody has ever seen anything like this in this state," said Wood.
By contrast, he noted that Cuellar and Rodriguez picked up only one to nine votes during the ballot recount in seven of the district's other counties.
"I understand everybody's going to say, 'nothing happened.' But something did happen. Hundreds of votes, almost 500 votes, appeared out of nowhere and not because of machine errors," Wood argued.
Wood said he does not understand how Webb County could report an extra 115 ballots or how Cuellar could amass an extra 177 votes in Webb.
"These ballots were counted by a machine on three separate occasions, all of which gave the right numbers. I can't emphasize this enough," Wood said.
"And there is no innocent explanation for how you could have an extra 174 votes for Cuellar and zero for Ciro. Again, like in Zapata, every bit of this increase occurred in early voting and mail-in ballots," Wood stated.
Wood's counterpart in the Cuellar camp is Ed Shack, an Austin attorney who has largely represented Republican clients. He most recently served as ethics adviser to Republican Speaker of the Texas House Tom Craddick (R-Midland).
Craddick is now being investigated for dealings with a political action committee, Texans for a Republican Majority, in the 2002 state legislative races. The PAC is the brainchild of Congressman Tom DeLay (R-SugarLand), who led the state's efforts to redistrict its congressional boundaries, leaving Webb and Laredo split for the first time in history.
"That is a non-issue," Cuellar said Tuesday, adding he knew Shack during his tenure as Texas Secretary of State. Cuellar was appointed to this post by Gov. Rick Perry in 2001 where he served for six months.
"Mr. Shack is a very good, qualified attorney who worked for the Secretary of State's elections division years ago. He knows election laws. He speaks election laws," Cuellar said.
Meanwhile, Bexar County Democratic Chairman Gabe Quintanilla has demanded that a special prosecutor be appointed to lead a grand jury investigation of potential fraud in Webb and Zapata counties.
In a statement issued Wednesday, Quintanilla took exception with Balli's "outright" dismissal of any possible criminal activity in the Webb County controversy.
"I respect Mr. Balli," Quintanilla began, before stating there exists "an inherent conflict" due to the fact that Balli is Webb County Democratic Chairman and First Assistant District Attorney.
Quintanilla is a San Antonio attorney and former prosecutor who was assigned to the grand jury division of the Bexar County DA's office.
Quintanilla said the proper course of action would be to recuse the Webb County DA's office and bring in a special prosecutor "to get to the bottom of this matter."
However, as First Assistant DA, Balli would have a leading role in any decision to empanel a grand jury, and as Democratic chairman, he could also be called as a fact witness, Quintanilla argued.
Joe Rubio, Webb County DA, and Balli strongly disagreed with Quintanilla.
"It's premature for him to be making those comments. He's presuming and assuming things that have not even been proven yet," Rubio said.
"The fact that Mr. Balli sits as the Democratic chair does not prohibit my office from investigating the matter. I have 21 assistant DAs and 11 felony attorneys who are perfectly capable of handling any election fraud investigation, independent of Mr. Balli," Rubio said.
Furthermore, there is no reason for the DA's office to step aside for a special prosecutor, he argued.
"At this point in time, all we have are allegations. What we need to do is finish with the recount and take it from there. There is no reason to name a special prosecutor and no legal basis to recuse. Mr. Balli would not make the final decision, I would make the final decision," Rubio added.
Balli concurred.
"First of all, Mr. Quintanilla as a private citizen is entitled to his opinion. I disagree with him," Balli responded.
"There has been no criminal complaint filed as far I know regarding this election. In addition, we're still in the process of a possible second recount and that might clarify the entire matter...I'm allowed, under certain circumstances, to request an entire recount," Balli said.
"If a criminal complaint is filed, or there is evidence of wrongdoing, I'm the most interested person in denouncing that and attempting to discover that...Up to now, I've been one of the persons most critical of the process and most concerned about what has happened and I want to discover where there was error made so that we can address that problem in the future," Balli said.
Wood, meanwhile, said his focus is not a criminal investigation but his civil lawsuit.
"I want to figure out who won the election in this congressional race," Wood said.
(Staff writer Tricia Cortez can be reached at 728-2568 or tricia@lmtonline.com.)
04/01/04