Perry

When I think about our current Texas governor, I’m reminded of the old saying that where leaders have no vision the people perish. It takes very little research to document that Rick Perry and his right wing followers are leading Texas down the wrong path.

In an era where it is clear to almost everyone the future of this state and this nation lies in hi-tech jobs, a well-educated workforce and a modernized, efficient infrastructure for our states, Texas is headed in the opposite direction. While Perry can travel to the other states of the union boasting of low taxes and low regulation in this state, low taxes and low regulations are not helping the vast majority of Texas’ citizens.

Perry’s faulty leadership has led us down the wrong path more than once. If people will recall, he is the one who condemned a former corporate tax system and sucessfully advocated the current unsuccessful and unpopular business tax. Perry opined it would produce even more money and be more palatable to small business in Texas. The comptroller of the state at that time, Carol Keaton Rylander, predicted the state would suffer about a $5 billion loss each two-year period. Perry “poo-pooed” and ignored the comptroller’s prediction saying that economic growth would more than make up the loss. As it turned out, Rylander was right, Perry was wrong, and now almost all small businesses are unhappy with the new tax system, and it is not raising enough money to replace the corporate franchise tax which was repealed. 

The stubbornness of our political leaders to cling to a no new tax pledge has led us to a situation where our elected officials in Austin will not even discuss modernizing our revenue system to respond to modern-day needs. As a result we are 49^th of all of the states in the amount the state allocates per pupil for our public education system. We are deeply in debt having borrowed money to try to balance our budget and maintain our roads and bridges throughout the state. We lead the nation in lo-tech jobs having more minimum-wage workers than any other state in the union. And now, purely for politics, our governor is posturing, demanding that the Legislature find a way to refund $1.2 billion to business interests in Texas. 

Conservatives often compare our state government to a family and mistakenly avow that a family that loses income must simply tighten its belt. This metaphor does not resonate well with the current situation--our state would be better compared to a family that had an ample savings account in the bank and let their children go hungry in order to maintain the status of their savings. 

Texas has a savings account called the Rainy Day Fund. It contains approximately $8 billion, with a projected $11.8 billion by the end of the 2015. Yet, our leadership has slashed over $5 billion from public education and still searches for ways to take even more money from those funds allocated to public education and give it to charter schools or vouchers. Shortchanging our public education system will never lead us to a workforce prepared for the increasingly technical, high-paying jobs of the future.

Another potential disaster looming on the horizon has been brought about by conservatives who refuse, because of partisanship, to take a realistic look at the future needs of this state. Citizens and our leaders had best wake up to the fact that we might be able to live without oil, but we will not be able to live without water. 

There is no doubt our state is suffering from severe drought. State Representative Allan Ritter and his staff have worked diligently for two sessions on a comprehensive water plan. For generations our water resources have been wasted and there has been little or no state regulation or oversight. Representative Ritter's plan has been considered reasonable by a vast majority in Austin. Unfortunately, the Legislature has not seen fit to provide funding to assure an adequate supply of water for the future. With almost $12 billion projected in the Rainy Day Fund, the idea evolved to make a two billion dollar loan from that fund to various governmental entities around the state which would be repaid. Objections were raised by the Tea Party advocates that the money should not be spent. Democrats objected because they had unsuccessfully advocated using this fund to restore draconian cuts in public education. As a result, the measure failed to achieve a 2/3 vote necessary for passage. Ritter and others then attempted an end-run by providing a different mechanism of funding which was killed by a simple point of order.

Finally, a longstanding rule of the House provides that no spending bill can be adopted prior to the adoption of the general appropriations act. This is a reasonable and good rule in that nickel and dime projects passed before the general appropriations bill could rob the state of adequate funding to carry on essential government services. Additionally, if you allow small appropriations throughout the session, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for the comptroller of the state to predict the amount of money available to run the state.

The only consolation I see for the future is that if Republicans and Democrats truly get thirsty enough they will put aside their political bickering and join in the search for something to drink.

Corporations v People

It is somewhat heartening to see Senator Kel Seliger and Representative Charlie Geren wake up to the fact that some features of the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling are not good for the country. Since the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that corporations are people, and that corporations and labor unions can contribute unlimited amounts of money to candidates for public office, there has been a proliferation of 501c(4) non-profit organizations which apparently exist solely for the purpose of laundering money. 

These organizations may receive money from anyone–even a foreign corporation–and keep that source secret. They can also keep secret the sources of money they contribute to candidates for  public office. Another bad feature of this system is that the creators of the 501c(4) organizations can pay themselves unlimited amounts as administrators or operators of the non-profit corporation without any government oversight.

While the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are people, and thus not preventing corporations from spending their money to elect or defeat various candidates, voting citizens should have the right to know from whence came the money supporting the different candidates. No one can deny that knowing where the money came from to elect a candidate would say a lot about the future conduct of that candidate should he or she be elected to public office.  

For example, if a candidate receives $100,000 from a pharmaceutical corporation, it shouldn’t be too hard to figure that that particular candidate will not be voting for transparency or price controls on pharmaceuticals. What’s even worse about the Citizens United ruling is that corporations and unions are made up of individuals who may or may not have a say in which candidate gets supported with a portion of their dues or stock investments. It appears the decision of which candidate to support or oppose reposes only in the management of corporations or the leadership of labor unions. Looked at logically, none of it makes any sense. It is certainly not an improvement or contribution toward open government.

Senator Seliger passed through the Senate in Texas a provision which would require any such organization spending $25,000 or more to reveal its sources and report more accurately its contributions. Representative Charlie Geren picked the bill up; and after a rather hot and lengthy debate, the bill has passed the House on second reading. The news media often refers to the people’s right to know. What could be a greater need to know than where the money comes from for various political candidates. It is somewhat refreshing to see two Republicans weigh in on the issue of open government and transparency in politics.

Another revealing situation is on the horizon for this particular bill.  If finally passed by the House, it will go to the desk of Governor Rick Perry. It is the opinion of most insiders around Austin that Perry will, in fact, run again for President. An obvious fact from the past Republican Primary election is that Rick Perry was blessed with support from multi-billionaires and millionaires and would expect to be supported again. Some in Austin have even speculated that one of the reasons for Perry again seeking the presidency is to enable some of his closest buddies to assemble one of these 501c(4) corporations and reap huge rewards–in the millions.

In this arena the old statement “follow the money” could never be more true.  Let’s wait and watch.

Private Sector v Government

I am a strong believer in free enterprise.  I would never universally condemn it, or even the huge corporate conglomerates which, I believe, sometimes have too great an influence on our way of life.  There is a popular belief among conservatives/Republicans that in all cases the private sector is much more efficient and produces better results than are accomplished by any form of government. Arguably this mindset has had a great influence on the current paralysis which afflicts our national government.  Too many adhere to the belief of Mr. Grover Norquist--who has extracted a promise from too many members of Congress never to vote for any type of increase in revenues--whose goal is to make national government so small it can be drowned in a bath tub.

There are glaring examples of the private sector not working as well as government’s efforts—even here in Texas.  A few years back, under the leadership of George W. Bush while he was governor, Texas attempted to privatize our human resource efforts by employing a private group to process the checks made to our elderly and disabled. The effort was launched with great expectations, even to the extent that numerous state employees were retired early or given incentives to quit their jobs, as they were being replaced by the new private sector effort. After a very short time, it became apparent the effort was a failure, resulting in a holy mess--which required the state to hire back most of the workers who had been encouraged to leave, and at even greater expense to the state.  That effort has since been aborted.

Another example of the great failure of the private sector lies in the deregulation of utility companies, particularly electric utility companies.  The problem is, the private sector works well where there is adequate competition to give consumers a free choice, and to encourage those who offer such goods or services to be efficient and provide the goods or service at the most reasonable competitive cost.  Unfortunately, supplying electrical power to Texas consumers is not one of those areas where competition works to serve consumers well.

Look in the phone book.  See if you can find a group of numbers in the Yellow Pages to call for electric service to your home. Never mind! You won’t find it. The Legislature was persuaded by the multitude of lobbyists for the big power companies to deregulate power. It took cities and city governments, and thereby the consumers, out of the loop of control of what we all were paying for.  The Legislature said they did it because that is what the people wanted. Unfortunately, ordinary folks testifying in fav or of such deregulation were seldom found in the halls of the Capitol speaking for deregulation of the giant power utilities.  It was mainly shiny-shod lobbyists and special interest groups who lobbied through the measure, promising Texans that the competition for customers of electric power would more than protect consumers and assure them of constant and uninterrupted service at the very lowest cost.

Texas consumers--you and I--were sold a bill of goods. Deregulation of electrical power has resulted in an average of almost a 50% increase in cost for electricity. Our grid system is no more reliable now than it was in 2002, and not likely to improve in the foreseeable future. And most certainly, we are not assured of any decrease in our electric bills in the near future. 

With these two examples firmly in mind, we should take great care to inform our state representatives and senators of our attitude the next time someone comes along and promises us great results by taking government out of the loop to protect us, the consumers of this state.

Greg Abbott

One of life’s unsolved mysteries to me is why reasonably intelligent people would choose to select a candidate for office in government who hates government. A prime example of the root cause for such contentiousness presently existing between various factions of party loyalists in government--as well as the disregard for what I call “Americanism” in Texas--is our current Attorney General Greg Abbott.

In addition to being one of the world’s great hypocrites, Greg Abbott continues to fan the flames of dissension between Republicans and Democrats with his rhetoric designed only to mislead and to stigmatize anyone in disagreement with him as an enemy of the state, or worse.

In a Monday April 15^th speech to a Republican meeting in Waco, our illustrious Attorney General allowed as how Democrats attempting to turn “Texas Blue” were a greater danger to America than the leaders of North Korea. Being a former member of the Legislature of 32 years, plus having received an honorable discharge from the United States Naval Reserve, and being in possession of two top-secret clearances by the U.S. government, I was somewhat taken aback by General Abbott’s characterization of those of us with Democratic Party leanings. Apparently, since Attorney General Abbott did not serve in the military, he is unaware of the requirement that you take an oath of loyalty to the United States Government--an oath which I gladly took and have not recanted. 

I say that our Attorney General is a hypocrite for many reasons, the main one of which is that he reaped huge economic benefits from a personal injury lawsuit after which, both as a judge and as Attorney General, he has done all he could to prevent other folks from having access to the courts for the same purpose.

It seems to me there is plenty of work for a conscientious Attorney General to do, particularly protecting the people from unscrupulous lenders, fraudulent contractors, and sorry, non-paying parents who refuse to support their children. I would dare say our Attorney General, however, has spent more time suing the federal government than attending to other more pressing matters of the State.

Instead of zealously attacking polluters in our state, our Attorney General has spent more time trying to do away with environmental regulations mandated by our federal government. And instead of being an advocate for adequate funding for public education as required by our own state constitution, he has chosen to appeal the recent decision of the state district court that declared our current level of funding as not meeting constitutional requirements. Moreover, instead of protecting voters’ rights in Texas, he has supported voter ID and now is proceeding with an action to rob minorities of protections under the Federal Voting Rights Act. Finally, no rational attorney could look at recent Republican efforts to reapportion the state’s districts for state representatives and senators and declare them compact, constitutional and reflecting communities of interest.

It is obvious Attorney General Abbott is more dedicated to republicanism than fairness.  One only has to look at what General Abbott defended as a fair and reasonable reapportionment of senatorial districts in Texas. Port Arthur was given a senatorial district beginning North of Interstate 10, on the West side of Houston, snaking down through Galveston County and across Chambers County where not one soul lived, and then reaching up and plucking Port Arthur thereby separating it from the rest of Jefferson County. I do not recall one word of protest from General Abbott about such shenanigans taking place in the reapportionment of our state. Greg Abbott, according to our state’s constitution, is supposed to be the lawyer for the people. I dare say any lawyer in private practice who allowed the misuse of his clients in such a manner would soon be found guilty of malpractice.

I’ve often heard it said voters are too often faced with the choice of the lesser of two evils at election time. Given a choice between Rick Perry, our current Governor, and Greg Abbott, our current Attorney General, it would seem that old saying is certainly holding true. 

Follow the money

In a recent edition of the New York Times results of an investigation revealed that lobbyists in Washington are spending over $3 billion per year lobbying Congress. A recent analysis conducted by former Ag Commissioner Jim Hightower identified amounts of money spent on lobbying in campaign contributions by category--financial institutions, pro sports, radio, television and publishing companies. But the most interesting to me were the contributions of health care corporations. The top 13 health care companies donated a little over $9 million in the last election cycle. Ninety-five percent of all of this went to Republicans.

Oil and gas interests, clothing manufacturers, food processors and paper companies, along with coal miners and insurance companies, contributed far more than $9 million each in the last election cycle.  Again, the vast majority of their contributions went to Republicans.

Before you decide that listening to Fox News, writing an occasional letter to your congressman, and standing up for patriotism and free enterprise makes you a great and informed citizen–think again.  And follow the money.

What do you think special interests gained by their $3 billion worth of lobbying and an ungodly amount of political contributions? They got freedom from regulation, for one thing, which very likely was one of the root causes of the disaster at West, Texas--blowing up half a small community right outside Waco. And health care companies such as rich pharmaceutical firms managed to stave off competition, maintained unbelievable prices for their products, and even prohibited the federal government from negotiating prices of pharmaceuticals for American consumers.

If we decide to talk patriotism, there’s more to it than wearing a tri-cornered hat and dressing up like Paul Revere.  

Citizens should take an in-depth look at corporations and at their ownership  and loyalties. Many of the corporations which spent the $3 billion on lobbying Congress, and the massive donations to Republican candidates, are in many instances owned in significant part by foreign interests. If you ask a high-paid executive of almost any of those publicly traded corporations what their main goal is for their company, it will not be supporting America, Americanism or looking out for American citizens. It will be producing a profit they can report to their board. Their loyalty is not necessarily to any country, but to the bottom line.  

It boggles my mind that too many middle-class Americans, particularly those working for an hourly wage, have not figured out their own interests when it comes to a contest between the big-money boys and their $3 billion lobbyists--working every day and passing out hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign contributions--who comes in first, and who comes in second. 

Do you really believe if you have a small business making $250,000 a year or less, or working out at one of the plants for even a top-dollar wage, that you would be heard before the lobbyists passing out the big bucks in Congress or Austin? Think again.

Time Magazine on Health Care

If citizens of the United States wanted to increase their blood pressure and heart rate, they have missed an opportunity if they failed to read a recent issue of Time magazine. The March 4 special edition was almost totally dedicated to discussing health care in the USA.

The Time article documents that we, in the United States, are not getting what we pay for.  While medical providers like to tout the U.S. as leading in the world in the quality of health care, they are not giving us, the consumers, the true picture.  Several Third World countries have a lower infant mortality rate than does the United States. Added to that, we in Texas have, on average, more uninsured children than any other state in the union--1.2 million of them--and their prospects for having health coverage in the immediate future appears to be extremely dim based on Governor Perry's political grandstanding about health care.

The recent article in the Houston Chronicle citing much of the information published in Time magazine rendered the opinion that if the amount of money paid for our medical treatment were no more than what is paid for similar treatments in Switzerland, our national debt would almost disappear in the next year or two.

The Time magazine article reminds us that when it comes to health care, sick people are generally not in a position to bargain or haggle over price.  Most of us seeking a return to good health will quickly submit to whatever is told to us by doctors, nurses, or hospital bureaucrats.  In the process, as has been pointed out time and time again, we pay exorbitant prices for procedures which oftentimes cost hospitals very little.  One example cited in the article was the charge to a patient of a particular treatment using a machine which was purchased by the hospital for only $19,000.  The patient's charge for using the machine as a diagnostic tool for one application cost the patient more than the purchase price of the machine.  Other examples were cited such as the cost of $1.75 for a single Tylenol capsule. 

A classic example of the overcharges of some hospitals, even in this area, resulted in a lawsuit which I handled a few years back.  A friend of mine had a mild heart attack and checked in one of our local health providers.  He was there only 48 hours and was charged approximately $60,000 for his visit.  He did not have health insurance and wanted, as any good citizen would, to pay his bill.  He offered to pay $1,000 a month until the bill was resolved.  This offer was quickly rejected.  After several months of haggling, the hospital finally agreed they would take $15,000.  Unfortunately, my friend did not have $15,000 cash, but again offered to pay it off in installments of $1,000 per month.  This too was refused and the offer withdrawn since he could not pay it all in a lump sum.  The hospital followed through with their threat of a lawsuit, which I was required to answer for my friend.  As part of the discovery of the lawsuit I demanded and received an itemized billing for the $60,000.  I managed to obtain a copy of costs to another hospital for the same items listed on the suing institution.  Mark up, for example, on the stints used in the heart procedure were over 500%.  Similar charges were made throughout for items costing as little as a few cents for which the hospital was charging several dollars.

Fortunately for my friend, the suit was based on what is called in legal terms a “sworn account” by which the keeper of the records of the suing party must execute an affidavit that the charges sued for were both reasonable and necessary.  When I challenged the lawyer for the hospital to submit the issue of whether or not the hospital's charges were reasonable, it seemed the urgency of seeking a trial date disappeared.  The matter lingered on for several years and eventually we were able to settle it for a small fraction of the initial demand, and my client was able to pay that smaller amount in installments.  More people need to challenge grossly over-bloated medical charges and at the same time we need to be communicating with our U.S. senators, representatives and members of state legislatures to try to do something to get a handle on overblown medical charges.  Otherwise, more of our citizens will go bankrupt, and our national debt will continue to spiral.

Gambling

For many years the State of Texas was firmly against gaming or gambling in any form.  I, as a member of the Legislature, was among the opponents of opening our state to gambling.  At the time I believed,  and still believe, gambling is a sucker’s game.  The only people who really win are the owners of the gambling establishments.  

Things have changed.  Now, our state has adopted hypocrisy as an official policy of the state.  While our legislature continues to refuse to allow people to vote on whether or not to allow gaming in Texas, we are spending millions each month promoting one of the biggest sucker games of all--the lottery.

If refusing to allow gaming in Texas would stop Texans from losing their money, or becoming addicted to gambling, I would probably still be opposed to having the Legislature submit a proposed constitutional amendment for the people of Texas to vote on.  Unfortunately, we are not preventing gambling with our current state of affairs in Texas, but only stopping our gamblers from gambling in Texas.  A recent study by a group called “Let Texas Decide” has revealed approximately $2.96 billion are being spent by Texans in Louisiana, New Mexico and Oklahoma.  We are not saving our people from gambling, we are only forcing them to donate their money to adjoining states.

'Way back, when I was a member of the Legislature, the Christian Life Council was a primary opponent to the legalization of gambling.  Although they did not participate much in elections directly, they were devout in their opposition to taking advantage of people foolish enough to gamble away their money and wished to protect Texans from such sinful conduct.  In recent years, however, it is not the Christian element which forms the greatest opposition to legalization of Texas gambling.  It is those gambling interests from adjoining states.  

I know for a fact that gaming interests from Louisiana have spent thousands and thousands of dollars on lobbyists fighting legalization of gaming in Texas.  I am also personally familiar with a group of lobbyists employed by the Indian gaming interest out of Oklahoma who do what they can to make sure Texas does not compete with Oklahoma for gambling dollars. 

I once thought the best way to promote good government and intelligent voters was for our media outlets to widely publish how members of the Legislature voted.  I am now satisfied, however, that on most important issues, anyone who listens to any television news or occasionally reads the newspapers knows pretty much how the various elected officials vote.  At this point, if the news media would now publish who gave our elected officials how much and when, the general public would be much better equipped to make intelligent choices.  

Billions of dollars are being spent by lobbyists in each election cycle, both at the federal and state level, and were the voting public to be fully aware of the source of such funds I daresay it would change many attitudes about why some issues pass and many issues fail.  The influence of money on public policy has only gotten worse with the Supreme Court’s decision of Citizens United.  The last presidential race set a record in money spent on any election--perhaps in the whole world--and will only get worse with super-pacs and rich folks scrambling to see who can buy which politician.

Well Versed in History...

Harry Truman once opined that anyone who wanted to be seriously involved in political governance should be well versed in history. President Truman said that given the same or similar circumstances, no matter what the timing, people, including those holding office, would react in pretty much the same manner. A review of history indicates Truman very likely was right.

Though George Washington was unanimously selected and revered as the wisest of presidents and the logical choice to lead a fledgling nation, in his farewell address he warned against a partisan spirit that could divide the nation.

Early in our country’s history, Thomas Jefferson was beset with partisan divisiveness in Congress. Jefferson was moved to say, “You and I have formerly seen warm debates and high political passions, but gentlemen of different politics would then speak to each other...  It is not now so. Men who have been intimate all their lives cross the street to avoid meeting and turn their heads another way lest they be obliged to touch their hats.”  (Letter, Thomas Jefferson to Edward Rutledge; Philadelphia, June 24, 1797).

Alexander Hamilton, then one of the leaders of the Federalist Party, believed too much democracy would weaken a nation to the point it could not survive in the then world of governments. On the other hand, the Republican Party, led by Thomas Jefferson and others, was convinced the Federalists had secret plans to try to turn the United States into a monarchy. Some even suggested that, rather than retiring as president, George Washington should be named the first king of the United States. Given those differences, it seems history has a longstanding tendency toward division.

Even in Texas divisive politics is not new to modern-day elections or governance. In reading the history of Sam Houston’s political career, one will discover not only was there free-wheeling debate on real issues but also, on at least one occasion, in a public debate, participants even drew their weapons and threatened a duel on stage. Sam Houston, departing from discussion of serious political issues during a campaign, once accused his opponent of having robbed a bank and dropping the safe from the bank into the river!

Fortunately for America, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, bitter enemies at one point, eventually managed to enter into what apparently is abhorred by our current leaders in Washington–compromise. Jefferson and several leaders of the Federalist movement put aside their differences and managed to move forward with provisions which enabled a young American nation to ward off threats by France, England and hostile Indians to wield and mold America into the world power of its time.

The ingredient missing in Jefferson’s time which appears to be a serious impediment to compromise and the adoption of common-sense measures to move this country forward is money-- money-wielding influence through highly-paid, highly-skilled, well-connected lobbyists. In Jefferson’s time I daresay members of Congress outnumbered those attempting to influence legislation and the will of Congress. Sadly, the same is not true today. Congress is out numbered probably at least five or six to one by well-paid lobbyists who, since a Supreme Court’spronouncement that corporations are people, may spend unlimited amounts of money to influence government.

Members of Congress will quickly argue they are in Congress to do great things-- but they will be unable to do things of any magnitude unless they are there. Being there requires re-election, and with the Supreme Court’s ruling money is becoming more and more important to our process.

If any Texan doubts the power of money in politics, that person should go check the list of campaign contributions to our current governor and compare them to appointments to important and strategic boards or administrative positions. I will say without fear of contradiction that any careful investigation or comparison of campaign contributions to appointments would reveal that more appointees to boards of regents, administrative bodies and judge-ships will be found to have contributed upwards of $100,000 each to Governor Perry’s election efforts, both as candidate for governor and for president of the United States. Most of the beneficiaries of the over $800,000,000 in “slush” funds have given large contributions to Governor Perry.  It is only with an alert, involved and investigative electorate that politicians at all levels will be forced to recognize commonsense measures and return our governing bodies to a sense of cooperative spirit which will be in the best interest of our country.

The future of real republican-style government in the United States depends on what the average citizen is willing to pay in time, study and effort to overcome the greed and avarice of those with unlimited funds.  Otherwise we will get what they pay for.

Private Schools Paid for with Public Money

Texas public schools were intended to be open to all students. Many upscale charter schools operate much the same as exclusive private schools.  In theory they are open but, unfortunately, operators have devised various methods to control entrance in these schools.  Some, in fact, charge fees.  Oftentimes in interviews parents are asked what they can do for the charter school if their children are admitted.  Those parents who promise the most have their children admitted first.  In other cases charter schools require essays which are not necessarily graded on an objective basis and these results are used as the basis of admission. 

Charter schools are authorized by the state -- but they are in fact private schools.  Most them are entirely funded by the allotment they receive per student out of funds allocated by the Legislature for public education in the state.  In fact, on the average, charter schools receive more money per pupil than the average public school.  Charter schools receive $5,746 for each student enrolled, while your public school receives $5,708. 

Charter schools are not regulated by the state and do not require certified teachers.  Recent studies show they spend more on administration and less on instruction than do traditional or public schools. There is no regulation or control on how much charter schools may choose to pay their owners or operators.  Generally, owners and operators are the same people who give themselves titles of principals or superintendents.  In at least one charter school I am aware of, the owner/operator paid herself over $200,000 a year to run a single-school operation.  This particular charter school is located within a school district of several thousand students wherein the superintendent receives slightly over $200,000 a year -- as the head of all the public schools in a large district.

Illustration published here featuring a report by
Dr. Michael Marder, Professor, The Univ of Texas.

While there are several advocates for expanding the charter school phenomenon in Texas it is generally resisted by teacher groups, as well as by associations of school trustees and administrators.  There is an odd mix of political attitudes opposing expansion of charter schools in the Legislature.  It is usually a combination of minority representatives and rural representatives.  In the current session of the Legislature, the fact that the past legislative session cut funding for public education by over $5 billion has thrown cold water, for the most part, on the current attempts to expand charter schools.  Even so, there is legislation authored by some elected officials which  requires that some properties paid for by taxpayers be given or leased to charter schools for a nominal amount of $1 a year.

There are numerous other differences between public schools and charter schools.  For example, charter schools are not required to meet the federal guidelines on free lunches or entrance requirements.  I have often said charter schools simply remind me of families on a tight budget with numerous children who then choose to adopt others, even though they cannot afford the ones they have naturally. 

Public taxpayers should keep an eye on the status of legislative funding of charter schools by simply calling them private schools. 

[Editor's Note:  In spite of the fact that charters may have admissions requirements, an interesting report and charts like the one above by University of Texas professor Dr. Michael Marder show that public high school students consistently outperform charter school students on SAT/ACT tests. Want a good short explanation in words and pictures? See the chart above and others comparing Texas public high schools and Texas charter high schools in a short movie narrated by Dr. Marder here, and an EdWeek blog article here.]

False Slogan

Recent events in mid-western states have caused a setback to organized labor.  Indiana and Michigan have recently adopted so-called right-to-work laws.  Unfortunately, there is very little understanding of what the so-called right-to-work law does. 

While watching TV recently, I observed a local attorney on television who remarked that because Texas was a right-to-work state an employer could terminate an employee at will.  It is clear that even an attorney does not have an accurate understanding of what “right-to-work” laws do.

First of all, the right-to-work law is misnamed in that it gives no one a right to be employed.  In fact, right-to-work laws have just the opposite effect because they give inadequate protection to non-union workers and are grossly unfair to the unions themselves.  The local attorney was correct in that the State of Texas is what we call an “at will” employment state--which simply means an employer can fire an employee for no reason and is only prohibited from terminating an employee for certain prohibited reasons. Those are generally the reasons contained in federal law. The only state prohibition against termination is terminating an employee for failure to commit an unlawful act.

The Texas right-to-work law, as well as those in other states, simply provides that no employee can be contractually or otherwise forced to pay union dues.  The reason such laws are unfair to unions requires a brief understanding of the federal labor laws. 

Under federal laws, unions may organize by receiving a majority vote among a particular group of employees called a bargaining unit.  The majority must vote to bring in union representation.  Once the employees elect to have a union represent them, the union is then obligated to represent everyone within the bargaining unit.  The representation is mandatory for every employee within that unit without regard to whether or not the individual pays dues to the union.

As an example, assume a non-union member is unfairly terminated or disciplined and desires to file a grievance under the union contract.  The union is obligated to pursue the grievance on behalf of the non-union employee even though the employee is a “free-rider,” enjoying all the benefits of the union contract but not participating in financial support of the union.

The situation described above is very like the citizen who would elect to pay no taxes, should he or she have that option, and yet the government would be obligated to furnish police, fire and other governmental services to them just the same as were furnished to taxpaying citizens.  I doubt any rational person would agree that such a situation would be fair to citizens who pay taxes. And the same applies to unions.  The “free-rider” who elects not to pay union dues because of a right-to-work law enjoys all the benefits of the union’s representation and bargaining and yet has a free ride.

Goings-on for Political Junkies

For many years Texas was a one-party state.  Although statewide officeholders ascribed to being members of the Democratic Party, there were two definite factions of the Party.  There were historic fights between conservative Democrats and the faction which called themselves loyal Democrats.  The largest split came between factions led by Lyndon Johnson and the old loyalist Allan Shivers.  It was said things were so good with Democrats that they needed someone to fight with so they decided to fight with themselves.

There are definite signs that since Texas has become basically a one-party state with Republicans holding all statewide offices and a majority of the Legislature that there are signs of trouble in paradise.

It appears Rick Perry, after having made such a poor showing in his short-lived attempt to run for president, has lost a good deal of his luster among his fellow Republicans.  Some Republicans have decided they have been “waiting in the wings” long enough, indicating there will be a real inner-party squabble during the next election cycle.

It is not a well-kept secret around the Capitol that Attorney General Abbott has let the insiders know he intends to run for governor no matter what other candidate may appear on the ballot–including the current occupant of that office.  Abbott is obviously “feeling his oats” in view of the fact that recent fund-raising efforts have raised him about 4.5 million, on top of the 18 million he has in the bank.  This compares more than favorably with Rick Perry’s recent fund-raising efforts which raised less than 4 million; and unlike earlier times, Perry has only 6 million on hand in his re-election account.

There are other signs that even Republicans are getting somewhat disenchanted with Rick Perry and his long tenure as governor.  Recently, members of the Legislature expressed serious doubts about Perry’s largesse through grants to various funds intended to spike economic growth in Texas.  Even some Republicans are questioning the fact that several million dollars were allocated to friends of Perry who have been donors to his election efforts in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

A couple of freshman representatives have introduced bills which would bring more transparency to the governor's efforts and another has introduced a bill to prohibit him from double-dipping, drawing both his salary as governor and his retirement benefits as a past member of the Legislature. 

There are other contests already visible on the horizon.  Land Commissioner Patterson and State Comptroller Combs have both announced their intention to seek the office of Lt. Governor; along with Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples.  All have million-dollar plus war chests already raised and all believe that they are the leading candidate for such office.  In addition to these announced ambitions, it appears Lt. Governor Dewhurst is not ready to give up the ghost, even after his poor showing against Senator Cruz in the recent primary election.  All of the intramural squabbles among Republicans should make for interesting days for those of us political junkies who enjoy watching such goings-on.  Stay tuned.

Ethics and Pay

It is often said, particularly in the service industry, that one gets what one pays for. Fortunately for the citizens of Texas, it is my belief Texans get far more than they pay for in the service of the members of its Legislature. It is no secret that I often take strong issue with the actions, or lack of action, on the part of various legislators. Nonetheless, I developed a keen respect for those willing to give their time and effort in an attempt to make Texas a better place.

Of late there has been some public outcry about ethical lapses of members of the state Legislature. The criticism generally centers around the fact that legislators have outside employment. As an example, a recent news article took to task several members of the Legislature because one ran an insurance agency and voted on matters related to insurance. Another was in the small loan business and was criticized for standing on the floor of the House and defending the industry in which he was involved.  The current rule of thumb, ethically speaking in the Legislature, is that a member of the House or Senate is free to vote for any measure that affects that member in the same manner as everyone else in the same situation is affected. In a part-time Legislature where members of the Legislature receive the princely amount of $600 a month for their service, that seems to be a fair standard of ethical conduct.

Generally, stringent rules of ethics are not very effective in policing ethical conduct--particularly when, as in Texas, the agency charged with policing ethics is more of a toothless watchdog than anything else.  A shining example of the weakness of the Texas Ethics Commission is when they ruled that taking a check instead of cash did not amount to bribery or violate the ethical rules of Texas.

Frankly, with part-time service in our Legislature, I would rather depend on full disclosure by each legislator as to the general source of his or her income, as is now required. The benefit of part time legislators is that they live in the community and generally face the same everyday challenges as do their constituents.  If the folks want to have an insurance agent represent them in the Legislature and vote on matters relative to insurance policies, homeowner decisions, etc., so be it.

If ever the state of Texas wants to get serious about having a serious contingency in its Legislature, the Constitution should be amended to require annual sessions of at least 6 months and pay its legislators about $100,000 per year, as well as awarding them a general expense allowance for the operation of their Austin and local offices.  The annual sessions and the increased salaries should be accompanied by strict rules against outside employment or income.

For years I held forth, to anyone who would listen, advocating better pay for members of the Legislature. But, I have finally reversed my tactics in this matter and now throw in with the naysayers and simply say this:  If you paid a decent salary to members of the Legislature, then any kind of trashy folks could serve, and not just those with trust funds or sufficient incomes to sustain themselves in Austin.

Corporate Welfare

The Republican leadership of Texas continues to act just as what they are–Hypocrites, with a capital “H.”  Recently, Attorney General Abbott and Senator Cronyn were beating their chests claiming they have protected the children of Texas because they have raised the penalties against people who abuse children.  That’s all well and good, but penalties are imposed on abusers of children after the fact.  It does very little for most of the children in the state of Texas.  

On the other hand, Cornyn, Abbott, Perry and others do not seem concerned at all that Texas has more children without adequate health care protection than any other state in the union.  Texas has more children living in poverty than any other state in the union.  

As I’ve said many times before, these great Republican leaders seem to care greatly for the unborn child, throwing roadblock after roadblock against abortions that our Supreme Court has deemed legal.  At the same time, they appear to give little concern, certainly almost no action, to the lot of the children who are already born.

In the wake of recent mass murders, Republicans deny that loose gun laws pose any problem.  They are quick to blame mental health as the root cause.  These same Republicans however are the very folks responsible for starving mental health programs of funding.  In fact, Texas is a prime example of spending more on prisons and less on programs to prevent crimes!

Even more hypocritical are the mental health 'blamers' who refuse to close loopholes in background checks which would allow finding those with mental health problems.

Further evidence of the hypocrisy of our Republican leadership and the majority of the Republicans in our Legislature is that we continue to hear that Medicaid--which offers medical assistance to the elderly and poor--, food stamps and unemployment benefits are a ruination to the state...that they cause people to land in a hammock rather than a safety net.  However, while condemning the so-called welfare to the poor, elderly and needy, Texas has gone headlong into subsidies for the very rich, who obviously are not in great need.  A recent study noted by the New York Times and the Dallas Observer, as well as earlier reports in the Houston Chronicle, revealed Texas government gives away approximately 19 billion dollars every year to corporations in the form of benefits.  These include tax abatements as well as direct subsidies to large gas companies, whose profits are at an all-time high.  It also takes into account the 300 million dollar slush fund which Governor Perry insisted on having at his disposal while we were cutting funds to education by 5 billion dollars.  

Recent examinations of the science companies and start-up businesses subsidy programs insisted on by our governor have revealed a substantial number of them have gone bankrupt or out of business. And study has revealed that another large number of these companies have failed to meet the promised quotas of employees who, they represented, would be on the payroll to help lower unemployment in Texas.  

So, the next time your state representative or state senator starts carping about the welfare state in the United States, remind him or her about the fact that Texas gives away almost 1/4th of the big, corporate welfare sops given in the United States–more than any other state in the union.  Business lobbyists for special interests may call it creating a good business climate in Texas.  I call it a big corporate welfare give-away.

Perry's Cronies

There was a time when Bob Bullock was a staffer for Preston Smith.  In responding to media criticism that Smith kept appointing his cronies to various high positions in state government, Bullock pointed out it would be very foolish for a politician to appoint someone not friendly to him.  Certainly, this is a logical assumption when one chooses to make high appointments.  Unfortunately, however, one would think a governor would give a great deal of consideration to qualifications even when choosing among his friends or buddies in appointing them to high office.

A close examination of what has been going on in Texas for the past few years almost makes me rethink my opposition to term limits.  Rick Perry, being the longest serving governor in the United States, has now appointed every member of every major board or commission in Texas.  Additionally, he has appointed or influenced the selection of both our major courts and most of our appellant courts throughout Texas.  The sad part about it all is he appears to give more consideration to cronyism than to qualification.

The latest evidence that Perry cares more about the “buddy-buddy” system than he does qualification is the fact he recently appointed one of his staffers to the Texas Supreme Court.  This staffer has no great credentials as a lawyer, has never served as a judge–even a justice of the peace–and has little to recommend him as a qualified person to interpret the basic law of the land as far as Texas is concerned. 

Even more disturbing is that any examination of Perry’s history of appointments quickly raises the suspicion that appointments are pretty much for sale.  Any time a major news outlet does an in-depth study of appointments to boards of regents, commissions such as Parks and Wildlife, the Public Utility Commission, etc., there is generally a connection between the appointment and at least a $100,000 contribution to Perry’s campaign.

Perry has insisted on the Legislature continuing to fund his technology fund and the Texas Fund for Investment to Attract New Business, as well as worthwhile endeavors such as the Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas.  However, in-depth studies by major newspapers in the state, such as the San Antonio news media, Houston Chronicle and Dallas Morning News have revealed large chunks of taxpayers’ money has been passed out--allegedly in the name of creating new business development in Texas--but unfortunately, after the large sums are ladled out to Perry’s buddies, all too often the job growth expectation does not come about, or the business goes under leaving little to benefit the taxpayers of Texas who footed the bill.  Even the Texas Legislature, which is not noted for great courage in attacking the governor’s programs, has raised the issue of accountability in many of these so-called economic development programs presided over by the governor.

Unfortunately, most Texans, as well as citizens of the United States, obtain most of their news from sound bites on television.  Again, unfortunately, television has neither the inclination nor the time to spend on what seems to me to be the makings of a real scandal.  Recently, the Houston Chronicle  published several stories concerning what they call the scandal-plagued Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas.  The Institute was the brainchild of a former staffer and good friend of Ann Richards.  Almost three billion dollars was set aside to try to combat cancer in Texas along the lines of the way California attacked the stem cell research.

The Dallas Morning News and Houston Chronicle have revealed, for example, a Dallas businessman, David Shanahan, invested $90,000 in a campaign contribution to Rick Perry and David Dewhurst.  He received a great return on his investment in that a grant from the Cancer Prevention Research Institute netted him 12.8 million dollars.  Another Dallas businessman, Peter O’Donnell, was one of the venture capitalists responsible for raising almost a quarter million dollars for Perry in recent campaigns and received for his trouble an 11 million dollar grant from the Texas Bio-Tech Fund--without any of the legislative required input from business or scientific review panels. 

I’ve always felt that a politically conservative person, particularly in Texas, was one who wanted to be very frugal with the taxpayers’ dollars and limit government activity to those things which could best be done by government and not private sector.  Unfortunately, it is my belief Rick Perry and his accomplices have given a new meaning to Texas conservatism and business climate--that is to say, the new Texas conservatism a la Perry is "Take care of your fat-cat buddies so long as they take care of you and underwrite your next campaign for president."

Why Republicans Lost

Since the recent presidential election, various conservative talk shows have expressed a plethora of opinions as to why Obama won the election.  Rush Limbaugh maintains that Romney lost because voters are just plain stupid.  Star Parker, an editorial opinion writer, maintains the results of the election occurred because too many Americans lack character.  Fox News has offered a variety of opinions, but mostly maintain too many Americans have become lazy, slothful, and are simply “takers,” not “givers.”  Romney, of course, maintains he lost because Obama bribed too many of the citizens with tax dollars.  Most of the folks offering such opinions are the same folks who now want their various states to secede from the Union.

Numerous saner elements of the Republican Party--such as Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida--are offering what I believe to be sound advice for the Republican Party in order to get back in the running.  They have hit on some of the things which influenced the results of the election.  However, fortunately for Democrats, I believe the far right lunatic fringe of the Republican Party will never let the GOP get back on track concerning the items mentioned by rational Republicans.  The far right fanatics will continue to deny science, abhor gays, have no respect for women and continue their fear-mongering about a hoard of illegal immigrants who will take over the United States.  I believe some of their questionable concerns and ideas became legitimate reasons the people of America chose to re-elect President Obama.  There are also other reasons, however, that I believe factored into the swing to Obama.

Like “know nothings” of ancient times who believed the sun revolved around the earth and that the earth was flat, too many in the Republican Party insist global warming is simply a myth propagated by the left-wing liberals of our time.  It is my belief the real reason Republicans refuse to acknowledge global warming is that to do so would require action to retard massive amounts of pollutants being pumped into the air to make many industrial complexes profitable.  Too many conservatives equate rational regulation of industry with denial of freedoms by the government akin to the regressive tax measures imposed by King George on tea. 

Another thing I believe contributed to the Republican defeat was the type of opinion expressed by Romney in the privacy of a meeting with $50,000 donors when he was most likely to be more unguarded and truthful of his core beliefs.  The “47%” comment reflected a lack of concern and compassion for fellow citizens who suffer in poverty and without health care or hope.  It is clear many Republicans or conservatives ignore the mandate of our constitution wherein we are to provide, through our government, for the common good.  Startling evidence of this occurred during the presidential debate of the Republican Primary where it was implied that those without money or health insurance should simply die rather than become a burden on the taxpayers of the U.S.A.

A third reason, which I believe turned the average-thinking citizen off, was what I consider an improper use of religion.  Religion has been used for century after century to induce common folk to act against their own interests–from the time when citizens were persuaded that kings were selected by God to rule to modern times when pundits, such as Pat Robertson, spread the gospel that hurricanes and other disasters are brought on by the sinful ways of certain states.  Like many countries of the world ruled by religious theology, some so-called evangelicals in this country would make our government the same way, punishing people for straying from what they believe are biblical mandates. Ignoring the Constitution drafters’ provision warning against melding church and state, they insist upon inserting religion into government at every opportunity. This activity ranges from encouraging prayer in schools and other places and to include creationism–which is a matter of personal religious faith and belief–in textbooks as a scientific reality. Many of these folks have probably never read a detailed account of Darwin’s theory and regard evolution as an instrument of the Devil and a rallying point for unbelievers.

Finally, a big reason for Obama’s margin of victory arose from Republican conservative attitudes  towards folks other than affluent Whites.  Numerous statements have insinuated that people of color desire nothing better than to be poor and live on the government dole, or that voter fraud was born of minority efforts to participate in the elective process, or that children of immigrants should be punished for having been brought to the United States.  One should recall Romney’s response to Governor Perry’s rare show of concern for Hispanics in advocating the Dream Act, which would allow immigrants who had attended educational institutions in the U.S. to remain.  Romney maintained he would veto such legislation and that such children should self-deport or be deported.  Republicans in several state legislatures have continued to introduce bills which are insulting to people of color or those with Hispanic surnames. These efforts range from the Arizona legislation–which would allow baseless arrests to inquire as to one’s nation of origin–to bills introduced in the Texas Legislature which would create stiff penalties on illegal aliens, except for those brought here to serve as yard men or maids.

Republicans should hark back to the advice of the cartoon strip character Pogo, whose famously said “We have met the enemy and the enemy is us.” 

More on the Speaker's race...

Speaker Joe Straus

As provided by the Texas Constitution, the Texas Legislature will meet in regular session at high noon on the 2nd Tuesday of the next odd-numbered year. The first order of business will be the selection of the presiding officer of the House, decided by a majority vote of the members of the Texas House of Representatives.  The Secretary of State will call the body to order, nominations and seconding speeches will be made, and, thereafter, depending on the procedure adopted by the body at the time, an election of Speaker will be had.

On occasion, decision on the speakership has been a rambunctious affair with the two sides fighting over whether there would be a secret ballot, open ballot, or no ballot at all, simply a voice vote or counting of heads on the floor of the House.  Generally, the Speaker has been selected long before the body meets in its initial meeting of the session.  Generally, the Speaker is elected by an informal process by which various members give written pledges to vote for a particular candidate. Speakers used to stay on for one or two sessions and then either run for higher office or decide to retire to a better job.  The exception to that norm came about in recent years with Bill Clayton, Gib Lewis and Tom Craddick, all of whom decided to stay for multiple terms.

Currently, a race has developed between the incumbent Speaker Joe Straus of San Antonio and Bryan Hughes from East Texas.  Straus was elected when dissatisfaction arose over the heavy-handed tactics of Tom Craddick of Midland.  Straus was supported by a large number of Democrats and subsequently has attempted to preside over the House in a fairly even-handed way, appointing a representative mix of Democrats and Republicans to key positions. 

As you may recall from an earlier blog post, during his second term--which was the last regular session of the Legislature--Speaker Straus faced some opposition led by the religious right arm of the Republican Party on the grounds the Texas House of Representatives should not be presided over by a non-Christian.  Straus is from an old Jewish family from San Antonio.  Although he’s been in the Republican Party for many years, the severe right segment of the Republican Party does not believe him to be in the spirit of true Republicanism in Texas.

Opposition to Speaker Straus has continued on the grounds that he appoints too many Democrats to positions of authority, that he is too liberal to fit within the mold of a Texas Republican, and some of the religious bigotry still exists over his religion.  The far right, particularly led by the Tea Party, has thrown their backing to Representative Hughes.  Hughes has now announced for Speaker and is going about seeking pledges to replace Speaker Straus in the coming session. 

Leaders among the Democrats in the State House have urged their fellow Democrats to remain uncommitted in hopes they can make the difference in the Speaker’s race, as well they should be able to do should they remain united.  The problem, however, is reflected in an old statement by former Congressman Bob Eckhardt, who once said organizing liberals in politics is about like organizing quail to hunt bird dogs.  Although some Democrats are disgruntled with Speaker Straus, those to whom he has awarded chairmanships and vice-chairmanships, I am certain, will be extremely reluctant to jump ship and support someone of an unknown quality.  It would be particularly surprising if Democrats found common ground and supported a candidate supported by the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party.  Democrats gained members of the House of Representatives in the recent election, and are expected to gain more in the next few elections due to the heavy population increase among Hispanics.  There are currently 95 Republicans and 55 Democrats.  If the two Republican candidates come near dividing the 95 Republicans anywhere close to even, the Democrats in the House will certainly be in a position to have a great deal of influence on whomever is elected Speaker. 

All Texans should watch with interest the selection process of the Speaker of the House in that the Speaker during the 140-day regular session wields enormous power--some say even more power than that of the Governor, at least for the period of time the Legislature is in session.  The person chosen to be Speaker will have a direct impact on the lives of all Texans when major decisions are made concerning health, public safety and education.  We should all watch with interest the actions of our elected state representatives and with whom they cast their lot in the coming session.

You can make a difference...

Years ago while I was campaigning to be re-elected to the Legislature, I ran into an older gentleman. As I attempted to hand him a card and give him my spiel, he interrupted me by saying, “Forget it, son, I don’t vote.”  It was frankly a reaction I had not expected, not having heard such a jaded view of the election process in my young career as a politician.  I attempted to convince the older fellow that he was wrong, and it could make a difference.  He was unpersuaded and replied it didn’t make a damn who he voted for, it wouldn’t matter anyway.

I wish at the time I had the experience which followed a couple of years later to relate to him about why he was wrong.  It had to do with the fact that a 14-year old girl took the time to speak to her elected representative and made a significant change in the laws in Texas related to the public schools.  It is a perfect case in point that citizens can make a difference, and the Legislature can be responsive to an everyday citizen.

While serving in the House of Representatives, I was approached by a young lady of the Jewish faith who was a close friend to my daughter.  They were the same age and in the same grade in school.  My daughter’s friend pointed out to me the unfairness of the school situation whereby people of the Christian faith were not required to deal with unexcused absences for their religious holidays such as Christmas or Easter whereas, on the other hand, if she took off for Rosh Hashanah or Yom Kippur she would be given an unexcused absence possibly affecting her grade and class standing.  She wanted to know why that was true.  Frankly, I had no answer for her, but promised to check into it.

I promptly made a call to the Texas Education Agency and asked why it was that people of a religious faith other than Christian received unexcused absences for participating in their religious events.  The answer I received was fairly straightforward.  It was simply the way the law was and had been for some time.  

Armed with my new knowledge about the situation, I proceeded to enlist the assistance of the Texas Legislative Council and drafted a bill providing that the law be changed to accommodate absences related to legitimate religious celebrations such as the primary Jewish holidays.  To my delight I was quickly approached by Senator Babe Schwartz who volunteered to be the Senate sponsor of the measure.

To my further delight and surprise the measure sailed through the House process, went to the Senate, was passed there and was eventually signed by the governor.  Since that time there have been several amendments to the bill to accommodate other substantial religious beliefs existing in Texas.

The point of the story is that by a 14-year old merely pointing out what she believed to be unfair about the Texas law led to a significant change in a public education system probably affecting  thousands of students over the years.  So, anytime someone says they can’t make a difference in what happens in government at the state, or even the federal level, then tell them the story of the so-called Jewish school bill.  Hopefully, it could renew their interest in citizenship and participation in our democratic form of government.