Lamar University and Lamar State Colleges

Lamar University, Beaumont

Sometimes many of us get so focused on things we consider wrong that we lose sight of those things which are right.  A case in point is the way many of us spend time criticizing our government--including federal, state and local.  But if asked, we would still allow as how this is the best place in the world to live and raise a family.

The greatest thing about America and Southeast Texas is that both can and do inspire hope and expectations.  It has been proven that the key to success in education is to raise the level of hope and expectation of those engaged in our educational system.  A great example of this was the case of the multimillionaire who, when addressing the entire 6th grade class in his old elementary school in New York, guaranteed that he would provide a college education for all students in that class who completed their studies in good fashion and graduated from high school.  This inspiration was enough that almost 95%--48 out of 51--of the class not only graduated but saved the millionaire a great deal of money because the majority of the class earned college scholarships.

Institutions which inspire hope and expectation in Southeast Texas must be Lamar University and Lamar Institute of Technology in Beaumont, Lamar State Colleges in Port Arthur and Orange.  Lamar

University not only offers a gateway of opportunity for people seeking to better themselves with higher education, it raises the level of learning, research, and economic development as well as the cultural level of our entire Southeast Texas community.

I was reminded of this recently when I had the opportunity to address some of the faculty and students on the campus.  It had been a while since I had visited the core of Lamar’s campus, having visited only specific functions in designated places.  As I meandered around the campus for the first time in two or three years, I became aware of the ideal setting of the Lamar campus.  It could easily serve as a picture definition of what a college campus is or should look like.  The buildings and grounds are well kept.  The trees throughout the campus have matured creating a shady atmosphere for visitors, faculty and students. The whole of it creates an ambiance of a pleasant center of learning and opportunity.  Not only was I impressed by the physical surroundings as I visited the campus, but I was especially impressed by the students.

First of all I was invited to address a group to commemorate 9/11 and the heroes who emerged out of that tragedy.  I was impressed by the fact one of the campus fraternities took the time and trouble to put together such a program.  The program was well planned, fairly well attended and included various patriotic themes in the center of the campus under the shadow of the Mirabeau B. Lamar statute.  As a very talented young lady delivered a wonderful rendition of our national anthem, I was impressed to note that students busy coming and going from their classes throughout the area paused in recognition of our nation’s anthem.

We are truly blessed to have an institution of higher learning with its counterparts in the form of the Lamar Institute of Technology, Lamar State College of Port Arthur and Lamar State College of Orange.  As I pointed out in my address, wonderful institutions such as Lamar are a lot like wives not adequately appreciated.  We should be mindful of all the Lamar institutions and their value to our area.  We should give them our support and urge our elected officials to do the same.

Watchdog vs Lapdog

Texas’ current Ethics Commission, the watchdog of ethics in Texas elections and for politicians, is a joke.  The sad news is our current Governor seems determined to keep it that way.

Currently, any opinion or penalty assessed by the Ethics Commission can be appealed to a court wherein the person dissatisfied with the Ethics Commission ruling may enjoy a trial de novo.  In plain English this means the court can try the entire matter all over again without regard to the findings of the Ethics Commission.  Almost every other state agency has a different standard.  The standard is “substantial evidence.”  Under this rule, the person appealing the ruling of a state agency must show there was no substantial evidence upon which the agency could have based their ruling. 

In the recent session of the Legislature, one reform effort was contained in a bill vetoed by Governor Perry.  Another free-standing effort at reform changing the de novo appeal to a substantial evidence rule was killed by Tea Party member, Van Taylor of Plano, before it ever got to the Governor.

The recalcitrance of the Governor and fellow travelers to reform our ethics watchdog in Texas allows some very stupid decisions to remain untouched.  One of the most appalling decisions was made by a former panel of the Ethics Commission in which an ex-member of the Legislature was alleged to have accepted unauthorized payments.  The ethics complaint was thrown out because the alleged unauthorized payments were only in the form of a check and not cash. 

More recently, Republican Judge Sharon Keller, presiding judge of the state's highest criminal court--whose conduct very likely allowed a possibly innocent man to go to his death because she refused to allow a clerk to remain on the job to receive a last-minute appeal--had her $100,000 fine from the Ethics Commission reduced to only $25,000 by another sitting district judge.

Judge Nathan Hecht, who sits on our Supreme Court, and who as a judge should be as pure as Caesar’s wife, has kept a substantial fine for his misdeeds tied up in court.  Judge Hecht, who was sited for having unlawfully participated in a partisan election, was the beneficiary of a large law firm's services. The firm  which regularly has cases before his court wrote off most of a $168,000 legal bill.  A gift of services should be the same as a gift of money or other valuable things.  In all probability, our fine Republican Judge Hecht will manage to escape payment of the fine levied by the Ethics Commission because his case is being reviewed by a district judge whose future opinions will be reviewed by Judge Hecht and other members of the Supreme Court.

Texans should remember at election time and hold our elected officials to a higher standard of ethical conduct.  We need a better system of enforcing ethics in our state.

More Hypocrisy

I have written often in this column concerning the hypocrisy of various politicians.  My definition of hypocrisy is the act of saying one thing and doing another.  For example, a religious hypocrite is one who professes to be adherent to godly principles in public, and yet ignores those principles in private.

Another fine example of political hypocrisy has emerged.  Governor Perry appoints the Texas Commission on Transportation which recently has been fairly open about the fact that revenue dedicated to Texas’ highways is insufficient to sustain an aggressive program of good roads throughout the state.  In fact, the Commission has made it known that the current revenue stemming from the motor fuel tax is wholly inadequate to even maintain all of our roads and bridges at the current level of quality.

Senator Eltife from Tyler, a Republican, has even proposed the motor fuel tax in Texas be raised and indexed to the cost of living so that it would increase as does inflation.  Senator Eltife, as well as Senator Carona from Dallas, and others have pointed out the fact that Texas has more and more maintenance requirements of our highway system while the motor fuel tax has not been increased in years to keep pace with the need.  Even worse, federal law and improved technology in automobiles have seriously reduced the amount of motor fuel being required of Texas drivers. Consumers using fewer gallons of fuel decreases the amount of revenue raised because the motor fuel tax is based on a per-gallon charge.

Governor Perry has steadfastly refused to even consider any increase in any revenue matter which could remotely be called a tax at the state level.  Furthermore, he has indicated to members of the Legislature that should they pass such an increase in tax, it would be vetoed.

The Perry boast, joined in by a chorus of Republican politicians is that they have managed to run state government in Texas with no increase in taxes.  This is the part that is grossly hypocritical. 

Reductions in the appropriations for public school has caused large increases in the burden of local homeowner and business taxes.  A recent strategy currently being employed as to highways in Texas is a blatant effort to increase taxes at the local level, shifting the burden from the state to counties and cities.  Texas Department of Transportation has proposed that Port Arthur assume responsibility for maintenance of 30 miles of highways and roads which lie within the city limits.  The Department has made a similar proposal to the City of Beaumont which includes in excess of 30 miles of state highways.  These include Highway 105, Highway 90, and several others.

Should the Texas Department of Transportation be allowed to pawn off the responsibility for these miles of state highways, it would include maintenance, repair, signage and anything else related to these miles of road.  All of this would almost assuredly result in a local tax increase to the people of Port Arthur and Beaumont.  Fortunately, officials of cities and counties throughout the state were alerted by their lobby organizations and managed to mount an effective protest of this grand scheme.  At least for the time being, the Department of Transportation has backed off of this ill-intentioned plot.  

In the Navy we had a saying about naval officers.  The saying went that there are two kinds of officers:  Do as I do officers, and do as I say officers.  There obviously are two kinds of politicians which fit in the same adage.  For me, I would prefer “do as I do” politicians, provided they would do the right thing the majority of the time.

Labor Day

We’re Sticking by Our Union: The Battle for Baytown

Most historians credit the industrial revolution for bringing the world out of the dark ages.  While the industrial revolution in all probability brought a better way of life to the world at large, it brought nothing but misery to the working class in Europe and even the United States.  Anyone who has read its history is familiar with child labor sweat shops and deplorable conditions for workers in factories, which rose slightly above the level of slave labor.  Workers had few, if any, rights and were rebuffed with laws which protected the rich and powerful.

The book Unions Before the Bar  by Elias Lieberman is a good history of the organized labor movement in the United States.  The book begins with an account of Philadelphia shoe makers who attempted to unite to demand an increased price for their piece-work done on behalf of sellers of shoes.  Instead of succeeding in obtaining a higher price, they were met with an indictment for a conspiracy to restrain trade, convicted and almost sent to prison.

Labor versus management in the United States was a one-sided fight favoring management–not by a little, but overwhelmingly.  This lasted until the advent of the Wagner Act passed by the United States Congress, which for the first time legally gave the laboring people of the United States somewhat of an equal footing to bargain for better wages and working conditions.  Even after the Wagner Act, workers were faced with goon squads whose agenda was to destroy picket lines throughout the United States.  Some workers fared even worse--such as in the Ludlow Massacre, wherein coal miners in Colorado were machine gunned by the state militia at the behest of the Rockefeller interest which owned the mines.

Labor Day should be a day to remember history.  Hourly workers who today enjoy excellent retirement benefits, medical care, fair wages and a fairly safe workplace owe a lot to those who struggled to establish those benefits through organized labor.  Even workers in non-union plants such as DuPont owe a lot to organized labor.  DuPont’s strategy over the years has been to stay one step ahead of unionized plants in order to avoid unionization of their companies.

It is somewhat disheartening to see middle-class laboring folks who have obviously forgotten the efforts of working class of people who came before them.  Multi-billionaires such as the Koch brothers have bankrolled successful efforts in state legislatures and even Congress to make it harder to make claims for industrial injuries, job discrimination, fair pay for female workers, and access to the courthouse for legitimate injuries.  Too many laboring people who are enjoying the benefits brought about by historic sacrifices are too ready to cast their lot with country-club, conservative politicians who kowtow to the corporate line which is calculated to march labor back into the dark ages.

This Labor Day celebrate by remembering the US history of labor and labor unions.

Editor's note:  For an article on Texas labor organizations, see The Handbook of Texas Online.

Party Switchers

John Montford, former district attorney and senator from Lubbock, ran throughout his career as a Democrat in spite of being urged repeatedly to switch parties because of the district which he represented.  Montford once said he considered switching parties sort of like a sex change operation...it would mess up one’s reputation for consistency.

I’ve always considered joining a political party akin to joining a church.  Once a person commits themselves to a church, they also embrace the religious tenants or beliefs of that church.  Likewise, it appears to me those switching parties and becoming Republicans now embrace the core beliefs of the Republican leadership as espoused by Rick Perry, Ted Cruz and Dick Cheney.

Those core beliefs, which have been well publicized, include abolition of social security, voting against equal pay for women, endorsing anti-union rhetoric and policies, believing government has no role in delivering health care to the citizens of this country, and believing that health care should be left to private enterprise such as insurance companies and giant pharmaceutical corporations.  

Republicans also obviously believe the Republican majority sitting in Austin can best tell what an injured citizen is entitled to rather than a jury of 12 of the injured person’s peers.  Were we to leave the trust of caring for the water we drink, the air we breathe, and the soil that produces our foodstuffs to the Koch brothers and Rush Limbaugh, that care-taking job would be left to the tender mercies of British Petroleum, Exxon and Chevron.

I strongly suspect, if you have the opportunity to meet one of these party switchers face-to-face, and ask which of these core tenets they truly believe in, they will quickly back peddle from most of them.

In plain English, these folks would rather switch than fight.  Harry Truman once said a person who would lead this country should have strong core values and beliefs.  By strong, he meant those beliefs you are willing to fight for rather than compromise.  Those folks suddenly realized they had always been Republican when it appears they will face some difficulty being re-elected as Democrats.  Had William Travis and his fellow Texans in the Alamo had the same attitude about rushing to join the majority, we would probably all be citizens of Mexico today and speaking Spanish.

My only consolation in all of this--seeing these folks suddenly realize they have been conservative Republicans all along and switch parties--was summed up by a friend of mine whom I chastised for doing the same thing in the Legislature.  He grinned a wry grin, looked at me and said, “Don’t worry, I’m not going to be any better Republican than I was a Democrat.”

Standardized Testing

Imagine, if you will, a track coach whose high jumpers could not clear the bar at any height other than a bare minimum.  In conference with other coaches, the coach decided since his track team in training could not clear the bar, he would simply lower the bar so they would think they were excelling in high jumping.  Imagine the results when his team competed with others who had engaged in strenuous training.  This to many would seem like a ridiculous scenario, but it is one which apparently the State of Texas has decided to follow with regard to education. 

Following the Perot committee’s nationwide study concerning how to make education in Texas better, it was determined that testing students would at least give educators a benchmark of where they needed to concentrate their efforts.  Unfortunately, members of the Legislature went overboard with required testing.

Complaints have been overwhelming from school districts, educators and administrators that the number of tests required by the Legislature was so onerous the system was spending more time teaching the test than teaching the subject matter or cognitive thinking.  Although the recent Legislature made a significant stride by reducing the number of tests to be required of students throughout their public school career, the Commissioner of Education has taken a giant step backwards in preparing Texas’ students to be competitive in the worldwide market. 

Commissioner Michael Williams--former Railroad Commissioner and candidate for several other offices in Republican primaries--recently announced that he was cutting students more slack when it comes to required standardized testing.  Apparently Texas is looking bad because too many students were in danger of not graduating from high school because they could not pass the required tests.  Commissioner Williams is much like the high school coach whose teams could not get over the high bar, so they simply lowered the bar to make them think they were excelling in the high jump.  Reducing the testing standards simply amounts to “play like” education. 

It is no better than passing students from grade to grade whether or not they met the standards for moving forward.  Unfortunately, lowering the bar will make students feel better about themselves for a short time, only to learn hard lessons when they have to compete with better educated candidates for good paying jobs in the real world. 

Having too many students fail the standardized tests should not rally a call for lower standards, but more effort in teaching and educating young Texans to be ready for the real world experience when they get out of school.

Several studies have shown that students in other countries are beating the socks off Americans in general and Texans in particular in many areas of standardized testing.  Other studies have clearly shown that you get more out of students by demanding more--particularly when they are not living up to their full potential.  Texas students are not dumber than students their age in the rest of the world.  They are capable of learning, and we should encourage our politicians to demand excellence and hope that our children will respond with a greater effort so that down the line we are not exporting high-paying jobs, and so that once again the world is beating a path to America as an innovator in technology, learning and manufacturing.

Unchallenged athletes will never excel in competitive track meets.  Unchallenged students in the Texas education system will never win the future of innovative job creation in world competition.

Partisanship

Recently there has been a transformation in the political bent of David Dewhurst.  Prior to his disastrous run for the U.S. Senate, I’d always considered Lt. Gov. Dewhurst as a rational Republican who more often than not was inclined to do the right thing.  Unfortunately, after his defeat by Ted Cruz, Dewhurst has taken a sharp, right turn and appears now to be willing to put politics ahead of progress for the state of Texas.  

Small episodes sometime can be very revealing about the motivation and character of people.  In the recently completed regular session of the Legislature, Lt. Gov. Dewhurst, who controls the agenda of the Senate, had the opportunity to place before the Senate a solution to our highway dilemma in this state.  Unfortunately, he placed a vote for abortion above maintaining roads, bridges and highways in Texas.  Apparently, he did so to prove he was more conservative than other Republican potential candidates for office.  As a result of this choice, highway funding was never really addressed by the Texas Senate during the regular session.  

Not acting on highways in an expeditious manner was in part responsible for multiple sessions costing over two million dollars.

Dewhurst has fallen in line with other statewide officeholders in apparently caring more about their conservative image than the people of Texas.  Rick Perry, for example, has turned down billions of dollars in federal funding, which will go to other states, just to show how tough he is in opposing federal mandates.  Perry has done this at the expense of poor people and uninsured citizens of this state.  

Perry’s actions will assure that he has burnished his credentials as a conservative candidate for president while at the same time assuring that Texas will continue to have more citizens without health insurance than any other state in the union.

We should not leave out Attorney General Abbott, current odds-on favorite to be elected governor, in the scenario of placing politics above the needs of our citizens.  Abbott has wasted $2.5 million suing the government (our government).  Most of Abbott’s lawsuits against the federal government have been to oppose measures which would assure citizens of Texas clean air and water.  The remainder have been wasted on Abbott’s efforts to maintain partisan reapportionment and throwing roadblocks into the average citizen’s ability to vote for candidates of his or her choice. 

This kind of partisanship may be good for our politics.  It’s not good for progress.

Abbott

There is one good thing about the democratic political process. More often than not it unmasks phoniness, wrongdoing and hypocrisy.

Greg Abbott, our state’s attorney general, has been billed as the odds-on favorite to receive the Republican nomination as governor. Many believe it is at least two years too soon for the Democratic Party to emerge as a real contender and are peddling the thought that receiving the Republican nomination for governor is tantamount to being elected governor. 

Abbott’s primary opponent so far is Tom Pauken. Pauken is at least as right wing as Abbott and is a long-time street fighter. He is smart and tenacious. He has already brought to light several questions about our attorney general Abbott. 

Abbott’s self-promotional material and news releases would paint him as a tough-minded young man who, in spite of a severe handicap, persevered and is ready to lead the children of Israel (Texas) from the wilderness of federal government control. And he would also like us to buy the idea that he is somehow a great lawyer whose primary purpose is to defend the people of Texas. A very close look at Mr. Abbott will reveal that not only is he a hypocrite of the first order, but he is also less than the kind of lawyer the average Texan would want to have representing them.  

Pauken has revealed that while Mr. Abbott boasts about going to work suing President Obama he has not done a good job of “tending the store back home.” The Attorney General of Texas is charged with the responsibility for oversight of state agencies to assure that taxpayer dollars are not misspent as a result of fraud or mismanagement. A recent scandal published in most daily newspapers throughout the state has made it clear that the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas Oversight Committee is a black hole of mismanagement, if not outright corruption. 

This cancer agency, created by Perry, was awarded millions of dollars, and later the entity itself awarded very generous payments to people and agencies not properly vetted. While Attorney General Abbott was supposed to be watching the “store,” the help he assigned to do so missed most of the meetings of the committee and allowed the mismanagement to happen. Even if the attorney general’s office files a lawsuit to recoup our lost taxpayer money, there’s faint hope of success.

Mr. Abbott’s hypocrisy is further highlighted by the fact he was able to pursue his career as a lawyer because of receiving a huge settlement from a personal injury suit. Reputedly, the settlement was upwards of $10 million. Mr. Abbott sued a homeowner and a tree service after a tree fell on him while he was jogging in Houston. Unfortunately, though, Mr. Abbott’s sympathies do not extend to his fellow Texans who find themselves similarly victimized by the negligence of others. As soon as Abbott got himself elected to the Supreme Court of Texas, he did the best he could to pull the ramp up to keep other victims of negligent conduct from recovering reasonable damages for their injuries. As it happens, Abbott is an avid supporter of the constitutional amendment limiting damages when doctors commit malpractice and injure their patients. Of course now Abbott says it’s a different story for people suing doctors than suing homeowners.

Abbott’s hypocrisy goes even deeper. While picturing himself as a courageous person who has overcome the handicap of being a paraplegic, he has not been a real advocate or fighter for others similarly situated. Abbott, along with Perry, has been an opponent of the Affordable Care Act which would have delivered millions of dollars to Texas assisting people with serious injuries or maladies. Again, Abbott has placed his political philosophy above the needs of hundreds, if not millions, of Texans. In fact, Abbott wants to claim that, as a disabled person himself, he cares deeply about access to public buildings and other similar challenges for persons who are wheel-chair bound, while at the same time he would peddle the philosophy that, “I know how hard it is, and I have met that challenge.” 

We need to keep in mind there is a big difference between a person in a wheelchair with no income attempting to cope with the daily trials and challenges of earning a living and a lawyer in a wheelchair with ten million dollars in the bank.

Taxes

One of the few things many of my conservative Republican friends and I agree on is how much tax should be extracted from the people. I believe no more taxes should be assessed on voting citizens than is necessary to maintain the functions of government. If we are collecting too much, we should not put it in a savings account, but let the people keep it.

Recently the Republican leadership of Texas, led by Rick Perry, seemed hellbent on maintaining multi-billion dollar balances in the so-called Rainy Day Fund while many critical needs of the state go wanting. I suspect the only purpose of this, looking down the road for future slim budgeting cycles, is so that the leadership can draw on a taxpayer savings account and avoid having to face the possibility of looking at new or different taxes. 

A great example of the foolishness of having a savings plan while critical needs go unattended is the current debate over highway funding in Texas. Without a doubt, our roads and bridges are getting in such bad shape that our highway commission is seriously contemplating returning some of them to gravel roads. Yet, the great debate rages in the Legislature about whether or not to take some of the money that is currently directed into the Rainy Day Fund and use it for infrastructure.  

The ultraconservatives oppose taking one penny out of the Rainy Day Fund, apparently being unable to detect when a rainy day occurs in Texas. While preserving the Rainy Day Fund at the expense of education, health, infrastructure, highways and God knows what else, they stubbornly cling to the concept of stashing money away that is not needed for the current biennium–at least according to their budgetary view. This makes about as much sense as a family head-of-household--unable to afford to pay the rent, repair the roof, or fix the engine on their broke-down automobile--insisting on stashing away hundreds of dollars from each monthly paycheck in a savings account.

I still say, if our leadership doesn’t plan on using the money and can’t detect when Texas is in a rainy day situation, they should not be taking the money out of the pockets of taxpayers. A great case in point is the previous session where we ended up laying off hundreds of school personnel, doing away with many reforms related to class size, and in short, impairing the quality of public education in this state by refusing to tap into billions of dollars in the Rainy Day Fund.

A current proposal which has been suggested for submitting to the people would be to allow one-half of current revenue generated from natural resources to flow into the highway fund rather than going into the Rainy Day Fund.  Hopefully, the proposition will receive the two-thirds vote of both houses so the people of Texas will have the opportunity to vote on this idea.

Our current leadership reminds me of the man who owned an umbrella but did not have sense enough to know when it was raining.

Coming Politics

The political history of Texas has always been colorful. For many years, Texas was regarded as a one-party state–all Democrat. Some, however, would argue that Texas had always been a two-party state-- Democrats and conservative Democrats, the latter being nothing more than Republicans in disguise. The ultimate divide came when Governor Allan Shivers, a conservative Democrat, pushed through the Legislature a bill which would allow him to run for governor as a Democrat while supporting Dwight Eisenhower for the presidency on the Republican ticket.

Republican politics, which now control every statewide elective office in Texas, grew through a well-organized and well-financed party operation. Support for Republican candidates arose out of the Republican Party itself, which raised the money and financed and supported the candidates. The Democratic Party, on the other hand, had enjoyed too much success, and the party was mainly a debating society for Democratic political nerds to debate high-minded issues. The party itself did little to support candidates for office, particularly at the legislative level.

As a result of the Democrats’ prosperity, they had no one to fight with but themselves. On the other hand, the Republicans were establishing a well-disciplined party which for the most part had to bless various candidates for public office running as Republicans in order for them to stand any realistic chance of succeeding at the polls.

The coming election cycle finds Republicans in much the same condition as were Democrats several generations back. With the exit of Perry, the longest serving governor in Texas, the Republican Primary is faced with political fruit-basket turnover. The governor’s departure has caused the attorney general and former Republican state chairman to announce for office to succeed him. This leaves a vacancy in the attorney general’s office, along with a vacancy created by Susan Combs’ retirement as comptroller of the state. The Tea Party’s success in electing Ted Cruz over Lt. Governor Dewhurst has exposed Dewhurst as vulnerable to defeat in the Republican Primary and has attracted a host of candidates for that office. On top of it all, George P. Bush has announced for statewide office in Texas hoping the Bush magic will still prevail in the Republican Primary.

Of all the races, the most colorful and most hotly contested should be the race for Lt. Governor. All indications are that the current Lt. Governor David Dewhurst will seek re-election. He has already been challenged by the man he named as chairman of the Education Committee, Dan Patrick, right-wing conservative radio talk show host out of Houston. He is joined by Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson as well as Todd Staples, who is currently the best funded candidate for that office. Of course Dewhurst with his millions can self-fund his campaign, and Jerry Patterson, having authored the concealed-weapons-carry bill and having spent several terms in the land office, has built a solid base of grassroots support which he intends to trade on.

We political wonks should have an enjoyable election season watching all of the inner-party actions play out. The thing most of us will look for is how well Ronald Reagan’s eleventh commandment is adhered to by the current crop of office seekers in the Republican Primary: “Thou shall speak no evil of a fellow Republican.”

Those Lying Republicans...

My father used to tell me that anyone who will lie to you will steal from you. Most voting citizens focus on politicians stealing or taking bribes when testing them for honesty. Unfortunately, this is not the only way politicians can be dishonest in office. 

We currently have massive lying to all of us which apparently goes unchallenged or simply passed off as “politics as usual.” Over the past 200 years the media has convinced the American public that there is an unwritten portion of our constitution which states that the people have a right to know. It has always been my position that if people have a right to know anything from politicians, they need to know the truth. However, in the last several years, the Republican Party has mounted an effort to not tell the truth about their true intentions with their legislative agendas.

One only needs to examine the public positions taken by the Republican Party, both at the national and state level, in four areas to determine their lack of candor, or outright lying. 

Those areas are abortion, civil rights, lawsuit reform and environmental regulation.

Abortion is a hot-button issue, and I quickly acknowledge there are large numbers of citizens on both sides who are passionate in the debate over abortion. Personally, I would not ever favor abortion, but I do believe it is a matter of personal belief which should not be dictated by law any more than whether or not I choose to attend the church of my choice on a given day.

It has been well established for a number of years by the Supreme Court that a woman’s right to seek and have an abortion is constitutional and legal as declared by the Supreme Court of the land. Particularly in recent years, there has been a war favored by the Republican Party to diminish that legalized right of women. Measures being passed through various state legislatures to close women’s health clinics who might counsel a woman concerning an abortion--requirements that physicians who run clinics which grant abortions must be credentialed by a hospital, requiring women to have invasive testing procedures before being granted an abortion--all are passed with the sponsors of such legislation unabashedly telling the tv cameras they are only doing so to protect the health of women. Most of us know this is pure baloney, and the only objective of such legislation is to deter or make the availability of abortions to women throughout the United States almost non-existent. 

In the area of civil rights, the Republican appointees of the Supreme Court fell right in step with the on-going subterfuge strategy of the Republican Party; not having guts enough to stand up and say, “We want fewer minorities to vote because they tend to vote Democratic.” They proceed to create obstacle after obstacle in the field of voting or fair reapportionment of legislative seats following census years.

The last impediment and safeguard for having voters protected from such shenanigans was a section of the Voting Rights Act recently declared unconstitutional by the Republican majority in the U.S. Supreme Court.  The basis of the finding again was a fiction. Supposedly, racial discrimination in Selma, Alabama, and similarly situated states, no longer exist according to Chief Justice Roberts.

In her dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, accurately likened the action of gutting the Voting Rights Act to throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you’re not currently getting wet. Clearly, the phoney reasoning for emasculating the Voting Rights Act was to protect the ill-gotten state majorities through voter IDs and similar measures which are supposedly to protect us from voter fraud where none really exists.

A third area of the false-face put on by Republicans is in the area of so-called tort reform. Advocates of such tort reform groups claim it is necessary to deny citizens access to trial by jury for their civil claims to avoid frivolous lawsuits. Again, the objective is not to deter frivolous lawsuits, but those with merit which take a few pennies away from the profiteering, major corporations and insurance companies in our country.

Finally, in the field of our environment, conservative politicians will say with a straight face, with millions of people watching on television, they have scientific evidence that man-made global warming does not exist. Again, 98% of scientists in the world have told us that man is contributing to destroying the ozone layer which ultimately will allow the destruction of the earth. Their position in this matter that it is false and will destroy jobs is meant not to save the earth, but to save money for those corporations who are reaping huge profits by spitting several tons of poison into our atmosphere on a daily basis. Such dishonesty is the same as stealing from those of us who wish a future for our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

Sadly, the false argument that protecting the environment equals fewer jobs lacks vision. An all-out search for alternatives to fuels currently used could not only save the atmosphere, but could very well be the salvation of our moribund economy. It is often said necessity is the mother of invention; and should we concentrate the nation’s wealth and resources on finding alternative sources of fuel such as hydrogen to power our vehicles, it is highly likely we could have an explosion of technological development and economic growth unparalleled since the same was brought about by our nation’s commitment toward space exploration. 

It’s time that we, as voting citizens, start demanding politicians to say what they mean and mean what they say. 

TWIA

The two recent special sessions of the Legislature demonstrate once again that our Governor “Good Hair” is more dedicated to Republican Party politics than he is to the people--particularly to the people along the Gulf Coast. As though it were the most burning issue in the hearts of all Texans, abortion seemed to be the feature of the past two special sessions. And, in the most recent special session, it was almost the only issue considered by the governor or the Legislature.

Sadly, those of us who live on the Gulf Coast are left exposed to impending disaster in the form of another Hurricane Ike. 

It is a poorly kept secret that the Republican administration currently in charge of Texas is cozy with the insurance industry. Our homeowner rates continue to be among the highest in the nation, and our Republican courts continue to side with insurance companies about 85% of the time when given the opportunity. TWIA is another example of dancing to the tune played by the insurance companies while the average homeowner pays the fiddler.

A few years ago insurance carriers could not write homeowner’s insurance in Texas unless they included windstorm damage.  A solution was supposedly found in the form of TWIA–Texas Windstorm Insurance Association.  Insurance companies were smarting because of the requirement that they cover windstorm damage in order to tap the lucrative insurance market of homeowners in Texas.  The bargain that was struck was that a state insurance association would be created as an option for homeowners who wanted to have insurance coverage on their homes for major storm damage. 

Insurance carriers agreed to pony up sufficient amounts of money to fund the Texas Windstorm Insurance Association in exchange for the privilege of writing homeowners’ insurance minus windstorm coverage.  Initially, adequate reserves were placed into the windstorm pool to cover damages, and, at the same time, insurance carriers proceeded to write highly profitable homeowner’s insurance without windstorm coverage.  The bargain has made millions for our insurance carriers who write policies in Texas.

Unfortunately, Hurricane Ike devastated the pool--in part because of the high number of claims and the great damage wrought by Hurricane Ike, but also in part by the incompetent handling and organization of the state windstorm insurance alliance.  After Ike, when the association was needed most by persons who were left homeless by storm damage, it was discovered that the association was being run either by incompetents–to say it kindly--or by crooks, at worst. Thousands and thousands of dollars were paid to non-deserving claimants while legitimate homeowner claims were left waiting for months, and in some cases, years.  

It came out that persons were hired as adjusters who had little, if any, experience in adjusting claims and some had records of felony convictions. Probably what should have been done was a major attorney general or grand jury investigation of the whole ball of wax--and someone should have suffered major consequences as a result of the mishandling of this fund. 

In typical Republican fashion, however, the response from the legislative leadership–all Republican at the time–was to punish the homeowners and reward the insurance companies. Instead of continuing the system whereby insurance companies, in order to continue writing homeowner policies without windstorm coverage, would pony up enough to fund the program adequately, legislation was passed through the House and Senate putting a cap on the amount for which insurance companies operating in Texas would be liable–an amount woefully short of the needed amount to protect homeowners in the event of storm losses.  Following this debacle, the further solutions to try to provide money for TWIA came most often from former Representative Larry Taylor, now Senator Taylor, who proceeded to try to limit claims in draconian ways so that little, if any, money would flow to injured homeowners.  

As an example, one of Senator Taylor’s last efforts would have been to restrict claims to a one-year window rather than the current four-year time period for submitting claims. When questioned in committee by Senator Whitmire and other Democrats, Senator Taylor alleged his only motivation was to clear up confusion about when the cut-off date was for claims against TWIA. Senator Whitmire argued that shortening the time limits for people who might not even discover storm damage to their roofs causing leaks in some of their closets was not ending confusion but simply another sop to the insurance carriers. Other solutions to preserve funds for TWIA came in the form of requiring that only employees of insurance companies could be used to adjust the claims.  Homeowners would have no say in hiring independent adjusters to assess their damages.

The saddest part of all is that, with impending danger of the approaching hurricane season, our leaders in Austin saw fit to devote their time to passing matters which would burnish their conservative credentials–all looking to run for some higher office. Those of us who live on the Gulf Coast should take note at the next election of which politicians care more for their conservative image and for insurance companies than for us.

A Self-Confessed Liberal Democrat

As a self-confessed liberal Democrat, I have often been criticized for only picking on conservatives and Republicans. I consider myself an independent thinker and can document plenty of criticism to some who allegedly fit in the liberal class. First among them is the so-called consumer crusader, Ralph Nader, who I found to be a phoney when we had Senate hearings on the infant safety seat bill. When invited to testify on a bill to save hundreds of infant lives in Texas, Mr. Nader quickly volunteered to testify for the paltry sum of $10,000.

Along the same lines, where I find fault with some of my fellow progressives, is the current flap about whether or not Mr. Snowden, the champion leaker of classified information, has done a good deed for citizens or not. Ostensibly, Mr. Snowden chose to violate his oaths and publish state secrets in violation of the law on the grounds that Americans needed to know the government might be snooping on some of their activities by keeping a record of foreign phone transmissions. My question for my liberal friends, who agree with Mr. Snowden, is “If Mr. Snowden was only concerned with the unconstitutional invasion of privacy for Americans, why did he feel compelled to give a Chinese newspaper the information that American intelligence had been snooping on Chinese activities?” That, along with the fact that he chose to seek refuge in a Chinese controlled environment, I find deeply suspicious. 

Even more suspicous is the fact this young man so concerned with American democracy and freedom chose Russia as a jumping off place on his way to Ecuador via Cuba. Can one really doubt that Rusian agents would pass up an opportunity to debrief someone with so many American secrets?

And in order to give a balanced column, I still have plenty of criticism for my conservative friends.  I am absolutely convinced too many conservatives are influenced by propaganda paid for and delivered by mega-buck corporations and right-wing billionaires such as the Koch brothers. The degradation of our atmosphere is a prime case in point.  It appears conservatives would rather have us all poisoned a little than inconvenienced a little.

There is no doubt the ozone layer of this world is diminishing.  There is also little doubt, based on scientific information, that greenhouse gases are contributing greatly to what could ultimately be the destruction of this planet. Republican House Speaker John Boehner is lamenting the fact that the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal would cause companies reaping millions of dollars of profits from power plants throughout the United States to spend a little of their money to stop polluting the atmosphere so greatly.  It has been estimated that 40% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions are attributable to the energy industry. Voters, when considering such political posturing, should ask themselves whether or not you’d rather die of cancer, or pay a little more for your power.

Texas Is Not Alone

On a recent visit to watch my granddaughter graduate from high school, I had occasion to spend a few days in Michigan. In some ways I discovered Michigan resembles Texas as far as state governance is concerned. Both houses of the legislature are Republican, as is each state’s governor.

Fortunately for Texas, we are somewhat better off financially than the state of Michigan. As to uninsured citizens of the state who are without adequate health care we do differ, but only in the size of the number of uninsured citizens. While Michigan estimates there are 450,000 uninsured citizens, Texas is estimated to have in excess of a million.

Apparently, Governor Rick Perry thinks it’s just fine to continue to have a substantial number of children in Texas rely on emergency room care as their first option for health care. While Governor Perry brags continually about the low tax rate in Texas, he fails to mention that every time an uninsured citizen of Texas seeks treatment in an emergency room, it adds an additional burden to the citizens of this state who do in fact pay for insurance or pay for care at the various hospitals throughout the state.  Estimates of this cost, which is shared by many Texas citizens, have escalated into the neighborhood of $20 billion dollars a year. 

In spite of the size of the problem, both the Governors of Michigan and Texas have refused to participate in the benefits of the Affordable Care Act which would provide Texas with billions of dollars with which to alleviate much human suffering, particularly for children in our state. What’s worse, Governor Perry appeared to resist any effort to formulate compromise strategies which might have alleviated the problem for many Texas citizens. 

Even the Michigan Republican legislature is making an effort to find a compromise which will allow the state to take advantage of at least a large portion of the assistance from the federal government. The plan in Michigan accepts federal funding, but builds in safeguards. Should the federal assistance be diminished or stopped, able-bodied citizens of Michigan without insurance or other coverage would be required to pay up to 7% of whatever income they had to remain on any federally subsidized health insurance program for the poor, or they would be required to purchase federally subsidized private insurance. This would assure that even if the Affordable Care Act ceased to operate as intended, the State of Michigan would not have to bear the burden of continued health care alone. 

It is obvious Governor Perry wants to burnish his credentials as one of the most conservative governors in the nation, but he should not want to do it at the expense of sick children. It seems to me that any humane person--a conservative, even--would want to explore alternatives rather than simply turning a blind eye to the billions of dollars available through a federal program, or turning a deaf ear to the pleadings of many medical experts as well as to the pleadings of Texans who are in need of adequate health care coverage.

Perry

The Reverend Jim Wallis, author of  God's Politics, opined that an officeholder's Christianity can be measured by his or her budget--the point being that Christian teachings repeatedly admonish believers to be concerned for the poor.

On the other hand, it is my belief that the level of hypocrisy of a public leader can be represented by his or her vetoes. By this standard, Governor Perry has secured his place in history as the all-time Texas Hypocrite.

For years Perry and many of his fellow Republicans have attempted to do away with the fraud unit based in the District Attorney's office of Travis County. It seems to me that an honest, law-abiding officeholder should never worry about the existence of a governmental agency whose purpose is to investigate public corruption. 

Republicans have been reluctant to simply say they want to obliterate an agency to investigate wrongdoing, particularly at the state level, and have under various subterfuges attempted to divert the attention from the Travis County's very effective District Attorney's unit.  On more than one occasion it has been proposed that investigation of corruption be turned over to the Attorney General of the state.  Those advocating this diversion know very well that the Attorney General of Texas does not have authority to preside over a grand jury or issue criminal charges.

Recently, Perry vetoed funds for the public integrity unit using the excuse that the current officeholder of the District Attorney's office in Travis County was convicted of a misdemeanor crime--DWI. To her credit, the incumbent DA Lehmberg immediately admitted her error, pled guilty and served one of the longest sentences handed out for first-time DWI in the history of Travis County. Perry said he vetoed the funds for the public integrity unit on the grounds that everyone had lost confidence in the officeholder. It seems that mainly Republicans--who have never had any confidence in anyone that investigates them for corruption--are the ones who want to dismantle the facility. 

Probably the main cause for vetoing the appropriations for this unit is the fact that too many of Perry's cronies are being looked at. There are over 400 cases the public integrity unit is investigating, including the 56 million dollar boondoggle by Perry's appointees on the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute. It is quite possible as well that the unit is looking into the multi-million dollar slush funds which Perry has passed out to many of his generous political contributors. 

Most of Perry's vetoes were not to improve government, but mainly for political reasons. One example is Perry's veto of the bill which would have required the three elected members of the Railroad Commission to resign their positions before seeking another term. The current practice allows members of the Railroad Commission to strong-arm those they regulate into giving large political contributions for the Railroad Commissioner to seek another office. This is nothing more than legal political blackmail. Additionally, officeholders such as the governor and Railroad Commission members can use perks of public office as a resource in their election efforts. Apparently our governor, who regularly hands million-dollar bills to the taxpayers for his travel in pursuit of his presidential ambitions, is in favor of allowing officeholders to campaign on the public dime.

Even Republican Kel Seliger said it's a sad day for integrity and transparency in Texas--referring to the Perry veto of a bill which would have required disclosure of names of large contributors to secret slush funds which were to be used in political campaigns.

While the governor continues to parade his Christianity, he continues to ignore the poor and protect the rich.

Education

As a student of government, educated by experience, I have long held the belief that public education is among the most important functions of state government.  Unfortunately, more and more it appears my belief in education as the future of Texas is not shared by the leadership of state government today.

The founders of Texas thought the support of education important enough to enshrine it in our state's constitution.  The Constitution provides that the Legislature provide for a sufficient system of funding for public education.  It is clear the Constitution does not provide responsibility of funding public education on the shoulders of cities, counties or independent school districts. 

The Legislature has apparently ignored the recent finding of an Austin district court that the current system of funding public education is unconstitutional.  The court recently ruled our current system does not meet the mandate of our state's constitution.

It is absolutely clear that the Legislature, in its slavish dedication to no new taxes, has continued to shift the burden of funding of public education to local government--local school boards, homeowners and business owners--in the form of property taxes.  To any observer, our current system of local taxation is patently unfair.  It rewards those with the least tax burden to raise the greatest amount of funding available per pupil while those making the greatest effort produce the least amount for educating the pupils in their districts.

There is adequate evidence from past sessions wherein Republican priorities lie.  During a floor debate over making temporary business tax breaks permanent, Senator Rodney Ellis pointed out the measure would take hundreds of millions away from education.  The answer to Senator Ellis' question from the Republican side was, “We have done it for the past four years!”  There seemed to be little concern that reducing the state's efforts for public education continues to shift more of the burden to local property owners.

The conservative leadership placed in charge of public education this past session, at least in the Senate, has exacerbated the shortage of funding for public education by condoning an almost unlimited increase in the number of charter schools.  Charter schools are funded throughout the state at a higher rate per pupil than are independent school districts.  Every newly created charter school takes away funding which otherwise could be available to support public education in our state.  

Not only do charter schools dissipate the amount of funding at the state level, they take away funding which would otherwise be allocated in the local district on a per-pupil basis from the public schools.

The greatest hope for advocates of adequately funded public schools is that the recent court ruling will be upheld in the direct appeal to the Supreme Court of Texas.  I have serious doubts the current makeup of the Texas Supreme Court will offer great hope in this regard.  A majority of the current Court has been appointed by our current governor, Rick Perry, who stoutly maintains public education is already adequately funded.  

Today's Texas Supreme Court is vastly different from the one which first ruled that Texas' public education was unconstitutional.  That court was led by former Senator Oscar Mauzy who had served two terms as chairman of the Senate Education Committee.  Oscar Mauzy was long a champion of a quality of opportunity and firmly believed the future of Texas was tied to the quality of education we delivered to future generations.  Time will only tell whether or not current justices of our supreme court share the vision of Oscar Mauzy and others dedicated to the future of public education.

Forfeiture

Recently, Hearst News started a series on the federal government procedure of forfeiture of assets.  The news articles reveal assets are often forfeited from people innocent of any crime and without judicial review. Hearst News’ effort to inform the general public of what is an unfair, undemocratic practice is commendable. Most folks know very little about forfeiture, only having heard of it as an effective law enforcement tool.

Federal law provides that any property used in criminal efforts may be forfeited. After the forfeiture, the proceeds of the forfeiture are shared not only by the federal authorities but also by local government involved in the seizure.

Few Americans know the extent to which forfeiture can be abused, robbing innocent citizens of their properties. One of the leading cases in forfeiture took place when a group of people purchased a large ship, a freighter. Unfortunately for the owners, they leased it to a South American concern who sublet the large vessel. Apparently, the people subletting from the leaseholders used the freighter to transport a ship load of marijuana. Federal authorities took the valuable vessel from its owners without notice.

When the true owners of the vessel discovered they had been deprived of their property, via the criminal forfeiture statute, they appealed ultimately to the Supreme Court of the United States who ruled the forfeiture was valid even though no notice of forfeiture had been given to the true owners of the vessel.  The only real appeal owners of forfeited property have is to appeal to the good graces of the Justice Department or U.S. Attorney.

In my view there are several problems with this procedure.  First and foremost, property of people who have never committed a crime can be taken with little or no judicial review of the circumstances or fairness of the forfeiture. Second, with forfeiture, police agencies are given an independent source of revenue uncontrolled by any elected official.

Glaring examples can be found locally in Jefferson County’s past in which several thousand dollars of forfeited funds were used not to chase crooks but to re-carpet sections of the then district attorney’s office. In Williamson County, the county adjoining Austin, Texas, a prosecutor once used forfeited funds to purchase an antique automobile. The prosecutor justified this purchase by saying he could use it to attract the attention of young people in order to lecture them on the evils of drug use.

All of us taxpayers pay a great enough price for effective law enforcement. We fund police departments, prosecutors, judges, courts and various staffs associated with the enforcement of criminal laws. It appears to me that should there be income from forfeiting property which has been used in the commission of crimes it ought to go into the general funds and be allocated by the people we elect to make those decisions. 

Part of the genius of a democratic society which has kept America free from abuses of militaristic agencies is civilian control. The only civilian control available to police forfeited funds is the budget, enforced by elected officials such as city councils and commissioners’ courts.

The technique of forfeiture of property based on criminal use needs serious revisions at both ends of the process--both the procedure for taking and the procedure for spending.

CO2

There is good news for the Southeast Texas area, as well as the world climate.  Everyone, except the dwindling membership of the Flat Earth Society, acknowledges there is global warming, in some measure caused by emission of CO2. CO2 is a serious by-product of crude oil refining.

More and more, scientific knowledge is documenting that CO2 has a harmful effect on the ozone layer which provides protection against the harmful radiation of the sun’s rays.

There have been some hot political debates which have become more and more acrimonious between industry and environmentalists as to whether or not there should be more regulation of CO2 emissions. High emissions from our various oil refining and chemical plants in this area have caused Southeast Texas to be labeled as a “non-attainment” area and serves as a chilling impediment to the location of new industries in this area.  

A project launched by Air Products and Chemical at the Valero refinery is good news for several reasons. The project plan is to capture CO2, compress it and pipeline it to West Texas--which means more jobs and an economic stimulus for the Gulf Coast area. Even better, their effort represents an economic payoff in developing a way to turn what has been considered unwanted waste into something profitable.

Almost everyone acknowledges that CO2 captured during a refining process--and not simply discharged into the air we breathe--is a good thing. The problem is that it is expensive to develop a process in connection with refining that allows the capture of CO2, and even when captured there's been a dilemma as to what to do with it. 

There have been several scientific findings and proposals, some of which do not find favor even with environmentalists. For example, science tells us that if we could simply discharge CO2 into the ocean deeps at greater than 5,000 feet, it would remain there in a semi-solid state and not hurt anything. I can only imagine the uproar caused should any company propose we begin pumping more CO2 into the deepest part of the Gulf of Mexico. There would be howls of protest from fishermen and other guardians of our seas.

Yet, while the debate rages in Congress and the State Legislature about creating government standards for  CO2 emissions, it's good to see that responsible industry, on its own, is making progress in this regard.

It is a true win-win when an aggravating waste can be used to turn a profit. And, it turns out, industry and science in conjunction with federal government scientific projects have determined that CO2 is an extremely good way to extract oil from played out oil and gas wells...which, in West Texas, are possibly in good supply. 

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.