Burnt Orange Report

Leininger & the Texas Legislative Republican Campaign Committee

By Phillip Martin

Quorum Report has the story: James Leininger, the well-known Republican contributor who has spent a great number of years and an even greater amount of money for voucher programs in Texas, has officially bankrolled a PAC. Leininger has sank $50,000 into the Texas Republican Legislative Campaign Committee, whose main purpose -- it seems -- is to defeat incumbent Republicans that voted against his voucher plan during the 79th Regular Session.

On the night of May 24, 2005, the Texas House of Representatives debated whether or not to include school vouchers in the school finance bill. A summary of the day's actions may be found in the BOR post by Byron titled "Vouchers Fail in the State House, Did Leininger Offer Bribes?" School vouchers had been one of the key education reforms proposed by Speaker Craddick, largely due to their tremendous support from Republican millionaire Dr. James Leininger.

At the time, many questioned whether or not Leininger was calling moderate Republicans (who were bucking against the leadership to vote against vouchers) into a back office to twist arms, offer bribes, and threaten the incumbents with campaign opponents. Vouchers, ultimately, were defeated, thanks to such independent conservatives as Rep. Charlie Geren (R-Fort Worth) and Rep. Carter Casteel (R-New Braunfels), the latter of whom was named Texan of the Year. For an excellent account about what fully happened to stop vouchers, read the Texas Observer article, "Revenge of the Rural Republicans."

The lines are clearly drawn. On one side, you have Leininger, the man with the money, willing to sink fortunes into a single issue. On the other, you have the rural Republicans, those moderates who -- in all honesty -- represent districts not that different than some conservative Democrats, doing what is best for their districts. The rural Republicans didn't get scared by those back office meetings in May, and I see no reason why they'll be scared in the primaries.

The question is -- what happens if/when Leininger's tactics backfire? Do vouchers even have a chance? Does Speaker Craddick have any sort of majority to push his far-right education reforms? Only time will tell...

HELP WITH CAMPUS SAFETY!!!

By Katie Naranjo

Everyone, if you are a former UT student, live in Austin, or care about safety in a densely populated student area....please look at this link.

Here is the text of the petition that you will be signing via online:

I support the Orange Jackets Tappee class in their endeavor to put emergency callboxes in the West Campus area. With crime becoming a growing concern in the area surrounding our campus having callboxes to serve as a deterrent and as a direct link to law enforcement would promote a general feeling of safety for the students that reside in the area. I also support the City of Austin, Austin Police Department, and any other entities in making this project a reality.

Everybody Loves Poll Numbers...

By Damon McCullar

There's a new poll out on the eve of the State of the Union address. In a NBC Nightly News/Wall Street Journal poll, the President's approve/disapprove numbers are 39/54. Read the full poll here.

Just The Facts...

By Damon McCullar

I saw this article over at the Chris Bell Blog. I thought was interesting enough to toss up on BOR. Mark McDonald over at Texas Lawyer scored Rick Perry's television commercial on a scale of 10 (fact) to 1 (pure fiction). Funny how there are facts and then there are "facts".

The rate of growth in the number of new doctors by region in traditionally underserved areas such as rural Texas and South Texas is lower now than it was before Prop 12. Only the major urban areas have seen any increase in the rate of growth. That largely may be due to factors not linked to medical malpractice, namely better facilities, fewer Medicaid patients and physicans' lifestyle choices. Even if more emergency room doctors are practicing in Texas, it doesn't mean they are delivering "better health care." According to a state-by-state report card conducted by the American College of Emergency Services, the state received near-failing grades in three of four categories: a D+ access to emergency care; a D+ in care/patient safety; and a D in patient safety. The state's overall average was helped by its grade in medical liability reform: A+. Because of tort reform, Texas ER physicians only can be sued for gross negligence rather than simple negligence. Supporters of Prop 12 claimed during the 2003 campaign that 60 percent of Texas counties were without obstetric and gynecology services. Today, more than two years after Prop 12 was implemented, roughly 60 percent of counties are still without those services.

The Index: Accuracy index rating — 2.4

Sorry Guv, but cause and effect on this issue is near-impossible to prove. And how can you say that lawsuit reform is bringing better health care to millions without acknowledging that one out of four Texans remains uninsured (highest rate in the nation), state spending on hospital care ranks near the bottom (41st in the nation) and there are huge shortages of board certified ER docs (44th) and registered nurses (48th)? We know you only had 30 seconds to make your pitch, but half the facts are worse than no facts at all.

When Blogs Attack?

By Vince Leibowitz

The Washington Post has an interesting article up that outlines a supposed intraparty rift among Democrats. According to the article, liberal bloggers and interest groups are fighting elected officials trying to "appeal to a much broader audience," and this could "complicate efforts to win back the White House."

The article says that such "activists" "have denounced what they regard as a flaccid Democratic response to the Supreme Court fight, President Bush's upcoming State of the Union address and the Iraq war. In every case, they have portrayed party leaders as gutless sellouts."

Woah. I thought that's what we were trying to do to the Republicans.

Here is one of the things the article mentions I haven't noticed, so I guess I've been living under a rock:

First, liberal Web logs went after Democrats for selecting Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine to deliver the response to Bush's speech next Tuesday. Kaine's political sins: He was too willing to drape his candidacy in references to religion and too unwilling to speak out aggressively against Bush on the Iraq war. Kaine has been lauded by party officials for finding a victory formula in Bush country by running on faith, values and fiscal discipline.

Many Web commentators wanted Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), a leading critic of the Iraq war who advocates a speedy withdrawal, to be the opposition voice on the State of the Union night. Most Democratic lawmakers have distanced themselves from the Murtha position. "What the hell are they thinking?" was the title of liberal blogger Arianna Huffington's column blasting the Kaine selection.

"Blogs can take up a lot of time if you're on them," Kaine said to reporters Thursday. "You can get a lot done if you're not bitterly partisan."

The Virginia Democrat said he will not adjust his speech to placate the party's base. "I'm not anybody's mouthpiece or shill or poster boy for that matter. I'm going to say what I think needs to be said and they seem very comfortable with that."

Aside from everything else, what does this mean: "Blogs can take up a lot of time if you're on them???" As in, if you are being interviewed by them, if you're reading them, or what?

I also found this interesting:

"The bloggers and online donors represent an important resource for the party, but they are not representative of the majority you need to win elections," said Steve Elmendorf, a Democratic lobbyist who advised Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign. "The trick will be to harness their energy and their money without looking like you are a captive of the activist left."

Oh, really? You mean there aren't far-left wing bloggers, liberal bloggers, liberal-centrist and centrist bloggers out there all working for Democrats? Is that not representative of the majority? As for "harness[ing] [our] energy and [our] money without looking like [they] are a captive of the activist left," how is that any different from using union activists for blockwalking, or taking money from any number of various and sundry PACs?

Finally, and then I'll shut up on this article:

Many Democrats say the only way to win nationally is for the party to become stronger on the economy and promote a centrist image on cultural values, as Kaine did in Virginia and as Bill Clinton did in two successful presidential campaigns.

Ok, this is not Virginia and this is not 1992. Stronger on the economy, yes, a more centrist image, not necessarily. Why be GOP Lite? What is the point? That's what the left wing of the Republican party is for. We are Democrats. By definition, all of us (from ultra-liberals to moderate Democrats) are pretty much on the opposite end of the spectrum from the Republicans on over half of their platform issues. Why pander? Why not offer a real alternative?

Furthermore, what's the difference between what Democrats were doing regarding campaigns (which were mentioned on Kos and Democrats.com) to call our Senators asking them to oppose Alito than when Republicans have done similar things? It's just that the glove is on the other hand, I guess...

In Education, What Matters Is The Kids

By Phillip Martin

Ed. note: The following is an op-ed by Senator Frank Madla, the incumbent Senator in Senate District 19. He is being challenged by Rep. Carlos Uresti, who's op-ed you can read here.

Last week, I received the single greatest honor of my life. The Board of Trustees for the South San Antonio Independent School District gave Royalgate Elementary School a new name: Frank Madla Elementary School. I have never conceived of the mixture of pride, joy and the humility I feel in the knowledge that one of my community’s public institutions of learning now bears my name.

This new and unexpected honor only serves to reinforce the commitment to education that has been a guiding tenet of my professional and public service careers. As a teacher in the South San Antonio ISD, as a member of its Board of Trustees during the 1970s, as a member of the Texas House of Representatives serving on the initial Blue Ribbon Panel on Education headed by Ross Perot in 1984, and as a State Senator for the past twelve years, I have regarded the education of Texas’ children as paramount in importance. No other issue rivals education because a quality education is the key to achieving every other life goal.

Renovating the state’s school finance system is a tremendous undertaking with many complex weight and formula details that must be agreed on by a majority of the 181 members of the Texas Legislature. These legislators represent both urban and rural school districts and constituencies with vast geographical, social, economic and cultural differences. Like the old story of the blind men describing an elephant, each can explain their specific part of the elephant, but they cannot agree on what the whole elephant actually looks like. And, like the men in the parable, in order to resolve the issue, we must put all of the parts together. As a presiding officer of the Senate observed a while back, “If this was easy, it would already have been done.”

Every member approaches the education issue from a different perspective, each with the responsibility of making sure the unique needs of their area of the state are addressed while, at the same time, trying to understand the unique needs of other areas must also be addressed I am committed to making sure that every child in Texas receives an excellent education, regardless of whether they live in a rural or urban area, and no matter what their socioeconomic status. Along with that, we need an equitable tax system that supports our schools while making make sure those who can least afford to do so, do not pay more than their fair share. Our students should all have top-notch teachers, administrators, equipment, materials and transportation. The bottom line is this: What matters most of all is the kids sitting at the desks.

The Texas Legislature has been put on notice: We must renovate the state’s school finance system, or the courts will do it for us. We have grappled with the problem in the past, but a solution has eluded us so far. As an educator, a school board member and a 33-year legislator, I have both a grasp of complex education issues and the seniority in the Texas Senate that will be needed to help resolve this issue for the benefit of all Texas students.

And with an elementary school not far from my home in South San Antonio as my namesake, every day, I will drive by a concrete reminder of the debt that is owed to every Texas student, from those in kindergarten to those in our higher learning institutions. I believe in them, and I will spare no effort to ensure they have every support needed to reach their highest potential.

Positive Change vs. the Stagnant Status Quo

By Phillip Martin

Ed. note: The following is an op-ed written by Representative Carlos Uresti, who is challenging incumebnt Senator Frank Madla in the Democratic primary for Senate District 19.

Stretching across 23 counties from San Antonio to El Paso -- an area bigger than 11 states -- Senate District 19 is the largest senate district in the country. Our challenges are big, too.

Nearly half of all children in Eagle Pass live in grinding poverty (and the other half are hardly trust-fund babies). More than 75,000 people in El Paso County are at risk of losing their water services. Hundreds of thousands of eligible children from South San Antonio to Uvalde to Pecos have been stripped of their health insurance under the CHIP program. Public schools are bankrupt, homeowners' insurance is twice the national average, and millions of dollars in available federal revenue that could help are being left unclaimed in Washington, D.C.

Obviously, the status quo hasn't gotten the job done. I will.

When the state's Child Protective Services system was in crisis, I helped lead the charge to fix it. When my opponent and others tried to pass the largest tax hike in Texas history, I helped lead the charge to stop it.

As a committee chairman in a Republican-dominated House, I understand that it's important to compromise sometimes. But as a former Marine, I also understand that you should never compromise your principles. And that's the difference between my opponent and me.

I am running for Texas Senate because it's time for new energy, positive change, and a fresh approach that puts the people and communities of our district first, instead of last.

My opponent has chosen to surround himself with the symbols of Austin's failed leadership. But what the people of SD 19 need is an independent voice, not a rubber stamp for the radical right.

The Week in Preview, Part II

By Phillip Martin

As an addendum to KT's post about what's going on at BOR this week, the 40/40 project is going to catch up on a few loose ends (and allow KT time to update the site) before launching our biggest feature of the year.

Today, I'll post the op-eds by Rep. Uresti and Sen. Madla (I received both over the weekend, so we'll go ahead and put them up today). Then, tomorrow and Wednesday, we'll take a look at Eric Beverly, another candidate who's running in HD 47. I previously featured Valinda Bolton and Jason Earle in this district, but Eric contacted me, asking to be featured. Though he doesn't have as much name ID as either Bolton or Earle, he is certainly a candidate with a great deal of legislative experience. He impressed me a great deal, and is someone everyone should know about.

Finally, next week's 40/40 will feature Bob Gammage and Chris Bell. We'll have an extensive interview we've conducted with each candidate, as well as an op-ed by each campaign. Be sure to stay tuned to the 40/40 for the latest coverage.

Stee-rike!

By Jim Dallas

Although I'm biased as all get-out in favor of Chris Bell, I can still call the balls and strikes fairly, just like Chief Justice John Roberts. In today's episode,Greg tells us (with documentation!) that Bob Gammage wanted to revive the House Un-American Activities Committee in the 1970s. A lot of people change their minds over the course of thirty years, but one surmises that something like this that would have been right considered malicious, conniving, or boneheaded at that time as well. By framing this as a character issue Greg gets a gold star and a cookie from this fairly unbalanced scorekeeper.

The Week in Preview

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

This week will be one of the bigger weeks in BOR history.

In the next couple of days, Burnt Orange Report will be proud to join over a dozen Texas Progressive blogs in the officially launch of the coordinated TEXAdS BlogAd network, giving campaigns and Texas advertisers the ability and ease to reach out to and communicate with readers and activists across the state.

With a target date of Wednesday, BOR v3.0 will go live, bringing the power of SoapBlox to the Texas blogosphere and a level of community interaction unavailable until now to the political chatter class here in the Lone Star State.

And while nationally we will have the SOTU address and possible filibuster of Scalito to make major headlines, the seeds of a grassroots movement were planted this past week and weekend which will quickly grow in the next few days. I can now officially confirm a post made by Matt 2 weeks ago that Glen Maxey may soon be an official candidate for State Party Chair. But to ensure that 'may' turns into a 'will' has been the discussion among certain Austinites this weekend, all of whom have have been thinking the same thing, that Texas is ready for Draft campaign...

Aside: See what happens when readers comment on posts? They end up on campaign sites? Now, can anyone tell me if you thought the interaction we have with our gubernatorial candidates this cycle would have been possibly after what we experienced in 2002?

Also, looks like Gammage has added Rep. Paul Moreno, Dean of the Texas House, as a supporter of his campaign, following last week's big splash with Gen. Wes Clark.

"Just as the Dirty 30 bonded long ago, we need to rally behind Bob Gammage," he said. "We were needed then, and we're needed now."

One thing I did not notice, but I think says a lot, is the fact that Bob Gammage joined Gen. Clark in Corpus Christi in support of Juan Garcia running against Rep. Seaman. Maybe I'm forgetful, but is that the first time a statewide candidate has been present at an event for a down ballot candidate without it being because one of them is having a press conference endorsing the other? (Support for other statewide Democrats doesn't count, but Gammage's presence and official support probably helped Bill Moody get some coverage, even on TV).

Dos Centavos apparently made it out to the Gammage/Clark fundraiser and had some words to say about that in this post.

Photo Day

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

All of these are in the extended entry, so check below for some Sunday night humor.

Update: I didn't want to make another entry out of this, but Democracy for Texas held their candidate training the other weekend and has a post up on the Blog for America about it. A number of Texas candidates from Congressional on down were there, including John Courage, who is preparing to launch TeamCourage.net soon.

My father was one of the guest speakers during lunch and had a blast. There is actually some political activity gearing up back home in local elections so maybe I'll be able to entertain y'all with some rural political action this spring.

Via Ones and Zeros...

Via PinkDome...Gammage and LBJ. Wow.

Texas Dem Congressional Delegation Calls for Cancellation of State Lobbying Contract

By Damon McCullar

Surprise, surprise, there seems to be a connection between the K Street Project and the Governor's mansion. The K Street Project is/was a DeLay/Abramoff scheme to get the lobbying companies that populates Washington's K street to only do business with Congressional Republicans.

In today's Statesman, the Texas Democratic Congressional delegation called on Gov. Perry to cancel a contract with Todd Boulanger and his firm. It has come to light that the state has awarded a $330,000 contract to represent the states interest on legislation. Todd Boulanger is a close contact of Jack Abramoff, who has plead guilty to charges that he defrauded clients.

The Dems argue that Todd Boulanger and Co worked exclusively for Republicans and that the company duplicates the job that what the state's seven-person state-federal relations staff in Washington is already paid to do through state taxpayer dollars. They conclude that these contracts are waste of taxpayer money.

According to Congressman Doggett (D-Austin) Texas is the only state that hires outside lobbying firms and that the money is just kickbacks to DeLay/Abramoff machine.

The Bryan-College Station Eagle is carrying an AP report that indicats that the contract to Cassidy & Associates (Todd Boulanger's lobbying firm) might have been a no-bid contract (why does the government love these so much?).

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Bob Gammage added to the chorus of criticism Wednesday, saying the Office of State-Federal Relations operated fine for years using its state employees without putting private lobby firms on retainer.

"I don't think we need to line the pockets of our cronies," said Gammage, who's been accusing Perry of being part of a "corrupt political machine" stretching from Texas to Washington.

Democrat Chris Bell, also a candidate for governor, had a similar view, saying that when it comes to ethics Perry "just doesn't get it."

"Apparently Rick Perry has a much higher tolerance for corruption than everyone else in the country," Bell said.

It's still too early to tell what the fallout from the scandal will be but it seems that this cancer in Washington has deep roots. We are probably at the tip of the iceberg in this scandal.

Texas Young Democrats contribute $2,500 to Special Election Races

By Katie Naranjo

This week the board of the Texas Young Democrats PAC decided to contribute $2,500 to two candidates both engaged in Special Elections. The first recipient is Donna Howard running in HD 48, who is currently in a run-off due to her exceptional show in the election on Jan. 17th. The second recipient is Katy Hubener running in HD106 and is unopposed in the Democratic Primary and has great name ID in the district.

The board will give each candidate $2,500 to be used in the Special Election and the campaigns have already received the donations. TYD is very proud to support these candidates as they work against their opponents. The election date for HD106 is Feb. 28th and the election run-off date for Donna Howard is expected to be Feb. 14th.

Weekend Governor's Race Round Up

By Damon McCullar

It was a big weekend for the Democratic gubernatorial candidates!

Mexican-American Democrats of Texas Endorse Bell
The El Paso Times reports today that Chris Bell has picked up his first endorsement going into the Democratic Primary. The Mexican-American Democrats of Texas endorsed Bell for governor of Texas. The endorsements are starting to pile up in the Chris Bell camp. After looking at the Gammage website, the only endorsement I could find was from Rep. Jim Dunnam of Waco.

Bell Accepts Invite for Debate
The Dallas ABC affiliate, WFAA has invited Chris Bell and Bob Gammage to a debate. As reported by Jason Stanford, the Chris Bell campaign has accepted the invitation. As of this writing, there has been no response from the Gammage Campaign.

Bell, Gammage Stump at Mid-Cities Candidate Forum and Chili Cook-off
As reported in the Statesmen, both Democratic candidates for governor attended the Mid-Cities Candidate Forum and Chili Cook-off this weekend. Both candidates urged their partisan supporters to ignore the "conventional wisdom" out there that the eventual nominee has no chance in November. From the Statesman article:

Bell called Saturday's turnout awesome, saying: "Note to news media: Hundreds of people don't show up to a union hall on a Saturday night unless they are completely fed up with what's going on in their country and what's going on in their state. The chili may be good, but it's not that good."

The crowd gave Bell, a former U.S. House member who has been touring the state since early last year, a standing ovation.

Gammage said: "I'm not sure how extinct we (Democrats) are. The people in this room are the tip of the iceberg."

The former Texas Supreme Court justice, who entered the race just before the Jan. 2 filing deadline, drew a partial ovation.

Phillip Martin Posed with Jack Abramoff

By Phillip Martin

From left to right: Unidentified, Phillip Martin, Secretary Norton, C. Bryant Rogers, and Jack Abramoff.

President Bush's Interior Secretary, Gale Norton, posed for a photo with notorious lobbyist Jack Abramoff, as well as Chief Phillip Martin of the Mississippi Band of Chocataw Indians. Chief Martin -- whom I have read about for many years after numerous Google searches -- did not officially meet with Abramoff.

Since I know Phillip Martin would never lie, we'll take him at his word. The story is here. The link to the photo is here. Thanks to fellow blogger Rawhide for the tip.

Fox Paid $14,000 For DeLay Appearance

By Vince Leibowitz

Fox News paid $14,000 for Tom DeLay to appear on Fox News Sunday in an 'exclusive' interview on October 2, four days after his indictment. The Statesman has more.

Am I the only one who thought public officials appeared on these shows for free?

Open Thread

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Random Updates for you today.

+ One of the two candidates (Edward Smith) to run in HD 106 in Dallas where Ray Allen has retired has now been kicked off the ballot since none of the addresses he gave were in the district, and he has only lived there 6 months. That leaves Kirk England to take on Katy Hubener in the special election and general election.

+ Matt creates a visual chart of why Lamar Smith is an Enabler to the Culture of Corruption. John Courage, running against Smith, has called for him to resign from his spot on the House Ethics Committee over on his blog.

+ David Van Os, running for Attorney General, has hired blogger PDiddie to be his new campaign manager.

+ Grits for Breakfast has not once, but twice now had his blog postings lead to major real world affects. The latest involved our blogging representative Aaron Pena.

+ Looks like former Rep. Keel might have a primary after all for his Court of Criminal Appeals seat which he knocked his opponents out of earlier this year.

+ Karen Felthauser, running for HD-52 up in Williamson County, makes the DF(A)-list. Check out her new website as well.

+ Google Video is freaking cool. Where else could you easily find such wonderfully useful things like this or see why Macs suck or have a world repository for digital fart films or see the clip from Stargate SG-1 with the Hatak fleet being destroyed.

+ Year end Google Zeitgeist is out.

+ "Champion" arrives at UT. IBMs latest ginormous supercomputer at 730 billion calculations a second.

+ Get your State of the Union preview on. Some funniness at MyDD.

Texas' Grand Canyon of Income Disparity

By Phillip Martin

A study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Economic Policy Institute shows that "no state in the nation has a wider gap between its richest and middle-income families than Texas." From the Houston Chronicle:

"Texas has arguably the most extreme separation between the well-off and everyday people in the United States," said Don Baylor, a policy analyst at the Center for Public Policy Priorities, an Austin think tank that advocates for working families.

"In many states, the income gap is like a gully," he added. "In Texas, the income gap is like a deep canyon."

From 2001 to 2003, the average annual income of the top 20 percent of Texas families — $118,971 — was nearly three times the average income of the middle 20 percent, which made $41,015, the study shows.

The average income of Texas' richest fifth of families was more than eight times greater than the $14,724 average of the poorest fifth.

By comparison, the average income nationally of the richest top fifth was 2.3 times greater than the middle fifth and 7.3 times higher than the bottom fifth.

The article goes on to talk about how the cost of living in one region or another varies in Texas, citing the example that, "a family living in a border town such as McAllen with an income of $60,000 would enjoy a much higher standard of living than a family in Houston with the same income."

True, but what is that really saying? It's OK to not make that much money in the Valley, because the region is so poor anyway? That family with an income of $60,000 still needs to send their children to college, and if they can't afford higer education opportunities, it's going to be twice as difficult for that family to "raise themselves by their bootstraps" into the higher income brackets.

To read the full article, you may click on the link below.

Income disparities are bigger in Texas

Study finds no state has a wider gap between rich and middle class

By POLLY ROSS HUGHES
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau

AUSTIN - No state in the nation has a wider gap between its richest and middle-income families than Texas, according to a national study released Thursday.
ADVERTISEMENT
Click to learn more...

At the same time, Texas ranks second only to New York when it comes to income disparities between the richest and poorest families, according to the study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Economic Policy Institute in Washington, D.C.

"Texas has arguably the most extreme separation between the well-off and everyday people in the United States," said Don Baylor, a policy analyst at the Center for Public Policy Priorities, an Austin think tank that advocates for working families.

"In many states, the income gap is like a gully," he added. "In Texas, the income gap is like a deep canyon."

From 2001 to 2003, the average annual income of the top 20 percent of Texas families — $118,971 — was nearly three times the average income of the middle 20 percent, which made $41,015, the study shows.

The average income of Texas' richest fifth of families was more than eight times greater than the $14,724 average of the poorest fifth.

By comparison, the average income nationally of the richest top fifth was 2.3 times greater than the middle fifth and 7.3 times higher than the bottom fifth.

"What we found is that inequality is growing across the country," said Elizabeth McNichol, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

In the past two decades, average incomes nationally of those in the bottom two-fifths of families grew just under 11 percent, the study shows.

The top fifth saw their incomes rise more than four times that much.

And, those in the top 5 percent of all incomes nationally saw their incomes skyrocket by 65.6 percent.

Uneven growth
McNichol said such uneven income growth violates the fundamental priniciple that hard work will be rewarded with a rising standard of living.

"When income growth is concentrated at the top of the income scale, the people at the bottom have a much harder time lifting themselves up out of poverty and giving their children a decent start in life," she said.

The study tracked U.S. Census data from the early 1980s to early 2000s. Incomes are adjusted for inflation, using the national consumer price index and reflect the impact of federal but not state taxes.

Among the 19 philanthropic organizations funding the study were the Ford Foundation, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.

Globalization blamed
The study attributes growing income inequality over the past two decades to globalization, long periods of unemployment, the loss of well-paid manufacturing jobs, weaker labor unions, the rise of lower-paid service jobs and a national minimum wage that hasn't risen in eight years.

It recommends that states narrow the gap by raising the minimum wage, relying more on income rather than sales taxes and offering transportation and child care help for low-income workers.

"We're going to rise or fall as a state together," said Baylor at the Austin think tank, adding that Texas leaders should also start investing more in public and higher education.

"The notion that you're on your own," he said of the state's cultural ethic emphasizing self-reliance, "that logic comes back to bite you at some point."

Some Texas economists caution that income distribution studies, especially when they also advocate social policy changes, run the risk of distortion.

"The notion that income inequality has gotten worse in the United States in the last 20 years — I believe that," said University of Houston economist Barton Smith. "The idea that it is worse in Texas than in other places — I don't know that I believe that."

Smith said the study fails to capture major differences in the cost of living from one region of Texas to another. For instance, a family living in a border town such as McAllen with an income of $60,000 would enjoy a much higher standard of living than a family in Houston with the same income.

"Texas is a big place and at the bottom is the Mexican border. You are looking at vast geographic and cultural differences," said James K. Galbraith, who teaches economics and government at the University of Texas at Austin.

"If Texas were two states or five states, any one of them would be more egalitarian, that's for sure," he said. "It's not all because we are run by rich, white guys with regressive agendas."

However, Galbraith said raising the minimum wage would help close the gap as would an environment where it is easier for workers to form labor unions.

National phenomenon
Stephen Klineberg, a professor of sociology at Rice University, said Texas policy makers should heed growing income gaps or risk falling behind economically.

"What we're talking about is a national phenomenon, but it's not surprising that it's stronger in Texas," he said.

"Texas and Houston are traditionally the worst places in the nation to be poor because there's so little help for the poor."

Klineberg said Texas and Houston thrived in the last century with a natural resource-rich economy producing abundant, well-paying jobs. Many of those jobs, such as those in the oil fields, did not require higher levels of education.

The high-tech economy of Texas' future, however, depends much more on higher educational attainment for all Texans, he said.

"Texas and Houston have got to massively upgrade their education systems," he said. "If we don't find a way to educate the work force in the 21st century, the state is not going to be competitive."

Sen. John Kerry Threatens Filibuster on Alito Nomination

By Damon McCullar

According to CNN, Sen. Kerry has said that he will filibuster the confirmation vote on Sam Alito. I have to say that I'm dubious about the success of this. The the confirmation vote as been scheduled for 4:30pm eastern time on Monday.

Who Knew Gamers Were That Political?

By Vince Leibowitz

I guess I never thought about gamers being terribly political, but I found it amusing to note that not only is there a website that tracks politics as it relates to gaming (video, not casino), but they aren't too happy about Star Locke's proposal to tax violent video games.

In addition, neither Games Are Fun News nor GameSpot News are very happy with Star Locke.

Texas Redistricting Case Begins on March 1

By Phillip Martin

The United States Supreme Court will begin hearing oral arguments for the Texas Redistricting map engineered by Tom Delay on March 1. A decision is expected by early July. Should the Supreme Court eventually rule the map unconstitutional, the previous congressional redistricting plan that was in place for the 2002 primary and general elections would most likely be reinstated.

Now, I'm not a lawyer -- by any stretch of the imagination -- and can never fully appreciate the full range of details and information presented for court cases. Thankfully, our friends at the Lone Star Project have compiled an outline of the key legal points raised in the four Appellants’ briefs. I read through them, and they are very informative and very interesting to read. To read these summaries, click on the link below. If you're especially interested in the precise legal arguments, you may click on the name of any Appelant to read the complete brief.

Ed. note: This summary of the appelants' briefs is provided to us by the folks at the Lone Star Project.

Jackson Appellants’ Brief – The Jackson Appellants’ brief was filed by attorneys J. Gerald Hebert, Paul Smith, and Sam Hirsch on behalf of a broad cross-section of Texans from all races, ethnicities, and regions of the state of Texas, as well as the Democratic congressional interveners. Included among these Appellants are Congressman Charlie Gonzalez, Congressman Gene Green, former Congressman Nick Lampson and Texas State House Representative Richard Raymond. As the primary Appellants in the case, the Jackson brief is the most comprehensive and covers more topics than any other brief. Key arguments include:

1. It is unconstitutional for legislators to redraw election districts in the middle of the decade solely for the purpose of maximizing partisan advantage if a legal plan is already in place.

* During the 2003 redistricting trial in federal court, attorneys for the state and Rep. Phil King, the Texas House sponsor of the DeLay plan, conceded that the plan was intentionally drawn for the sole purpose of maximizing the number of Republicans districts. This partisan purpose was used to excuse any “unintentional” violation of other redistricting principles, including the Voting Rights Act.

* The 2003 mid-decade “re-redistricting” can not be supported by claims that it promoted “partisan fairness” because the plan used in the 2002 elections, as drawn “from scratch” by the three judge panel in the 2001 Balderas case, was based on a demonstration map submitted by the State’s attorneys and the State’s experts. It provided Republicans a partisan advantage in 20 of the state’s 32 congressional districts, according to the state’s own expert witness.

* Mid-decade redistricting done for partisan purposes alone violates the “one-person, one vote” doctrine under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution because the use of old census data does not reflect mid-decade population patterns, which a knowledgeable map drawer could use to draw plans solely for partisan gain, disrupting stability and accountability in representation

2. The Voting Rights Act prohibits the State, as part of an intentional effort to maximize partisan gains, from destroying a District in which African Americans have demonstrated their ability to nominate and elect candidates of their choice, even if they do not constitute a mathematical majority of the population in the district.

* Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act protects coalitional districts where a racial or ethnic minority can elect candidates of their choice, even if that minority group does not make up 50% of the district’s population.

* District 24 in the Metroplex should have been preserved and protected under Section 2, because it afforded African-American voters in Southeast Fort Worth the opportunity to elect candidates of their choice, as confirmed by expert witnesses for both the Appellants and the state.

* Both the Texas House and Senate sponsors of this mid-decade redistricting effort recognized in public statements the concern that District 24 would be protected under the Voting Rights Act. They reflected this concern by preserving the 24th District as a safe African-American district in the plans passed by the House and Senate. However, in Conference Committee negotiations, former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay personally interceded and demanded the elimination of the 24th as an effective African American opportunity district in order to eliminate Democratic Congressman Martin Frost and to achieve maximum partisan gain.

3. The State’s 2003 map drew an unconstitutional racial gerrymander in South Texas as a direct result of their effort to maximize partisan gain.

* In order to protect a Republican incumbent in District 23 and eliminate any chance of Hispanic control of that District, the State removed 100,000 Hispanics in predominantly Democratic Webb County and replaced them with 100,000 Anglos in the predominantly Republican suburbs and Hill Country to the north and west of San Antonio. This change “stranded” over 300,000 Hispanics in a “safe” Anglo-dominated Republican seat and violates the Voting Rights Act.

* In an effort to compensate for the loss of the Hispanic opportunity District 23, the State drew an illegal racially gerrymandered “new” District 25 – a bizarre district in which a narrow, sparsely populated “land bridge” connects Hispanic areas of Southeast Travis Co. (Austin) with a concentration of Hispanic areas in the Rio Grande Valley. In this bizarrely shaped district, 89% of the population resides in two distinctly different regions and cultures 300 miles apart.

4. The Court should restore the 2001 court-drawn plan for the 2006 Election

* Should the 2003 map be invalidated, there is no reason to allow another election to be held under an illegal map. The State had a legal plan in place before embarking on its mid-decade redistricting effort. The State never appealed or challenged the 2001 plan in court, and its own expert witnesses testified that the 2001 plan was legal and fair.

* There is precedent in the 1996 Bush v. Vera Texas case for replacing a plan in the middle of an election cycle by canceling primary results in districts found illegal and then conducting an open primary on the November general election date, followed by runoff elections in districts where no candidate received a majority of the vote.

Travis County Appellants’ Brief – The Travis County appellants’ brief, submitted by attorney Renea Hicks, argues that the state’s decision to replace a valid districting plan with a new map in 2003 violates the one-person, one-vote principle because the state did not make a good faith effort to draw districts of equal population.

* The State’s voluntary decision to redraw districts (for partisan gain) using out of date 2000 census data was not a permissible and unavoidable variation from the equal population rule.

* Instead of attempting to adjust and correct the 2003 plan for population variances, the State’s mapmakers used their keen awareness of population changes that had occurred over time and, as evidenced by trial testimony, considered these population changes in tandem with the 2002 election results when drawing a 2003 map that sought to maximize partisanship.

* The State’s unbridled partisan goal in the 2003 mid-decade redistricting is not a legitimate state purpose that justifies incorporating well-known population variances into a redistricting plan.

* The Court should replace the 2003 map with the 2001 Court-drawn plan for the 2006 elections.

GI Forum Appellants’ Brief – The GI Forum brief, presented by Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) attorney, Nina Perales, advanced several arguments under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act that assert the State’s avowed partisan redistricting goal did not justify dilution of Latino voting strength and elimination of a Hispanic opportunity District (23).

* Dismantling a Latino Opportunity District (23) for the sole purpose of electing the candidate preferred by Anglo voters violates the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act. There is ample evidence that the State intentionally discriminated against Latinos when District 23 was redrawn to eliminate the majority Latino citizen voting age population and voter registration in the district.

* As Judge Ward noted in his dissent in the District Court opinion, GI Forum demonstrated that seven effective Latino Opportunity districts could be drawn in the same territory in which the State only drew six Latino districts (due to the dismantling of District 23 as an effective Latino District), a clear violation of the Voting Rights Act that cannot be justified by creating another Latino district in expanded territory elsewhere in the state.

* The State can not justify the dismantling of District 23 just because the incumbent is Latino when that incumbent is the Anglo-preferred candidate and not the Latino voters’ candidate of choice. Also, it cannot rely on a defense that it was carrying out the wishes of a political party to protect one of its incumbents.

The LULAC Appellants’ Brief – The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) Appellants’ Brief, submitted by attorneys Jose Garza, Rolando Rios, and Luis Vera, Jr., argues that the State’s decision to use outdated census data to redraw a perfectly legal map for the single-minded purpose of maximizing partisan gain violates the one-person, one-vote requirement, and that due to the under population of rapidly growing Latino districts, the burden of this “severe partisan power grab” was placed on the backs of Latino voters.

* A redistricting plan drawn with the “single-minded purpose” of achieving partisan gain violates the one-person, one-vote rule when it uses three-year old census data that under populates Latino districts, because partisan advantage itself is not a legitimate state goal that justifies such population variances.

* The manipulation of population data for partisan purposes, as used by the State in 2003, created disparities that fell most prominently on the rapidly-growing Latino population.

* The 2003 plan used outdated census data to craft a purposefully partisan plan that eliminated, in violation of the 1st and 14th Amendments to the Constitution, a Latino majority district (23) and all competitive districts in which the minority population cast the deciding votes under the pre-existing legal plan, including, among others, the 24th District in Dallas-Fort Worth.

40/40: An Interview with Representative Carlos Uresti

By Phillip Martin

Ed. note: Below is an e-mail interview I had with State Representative Carlos Uresti, who is challenging incumbent Senator Frank Madla for the SD 19 seat. To read my interview with Senator Madla, click here.

What made you decide to challenge your own State Senator -- two time incumbent Senator Madla -- in this primary?

Frank has a long record in Texas politics. For many years, he remembered that his constituents were the ones who voted him into office, not the lobby. Over the past few sessions, though, it became increasingly difficult for me as a Democrat to believe that Senator Madla would be a reliable vote for our district when we needed him. On too many bills, Frank crossed the aisle to vote with Republican leadership to balance our state’s budget on the backs of those who could least afford it. He became more interested in helping powerful special interests while kids went without health insurance, elderly people lost nursing home allowances, and state employee ranks were decimated for the benefit of a few big private interests. Frank’s votes were a slap in the face to me as a Texas Democrat, as a fellow legislator, and as a resident of the district he represents. I live where those children go without medical care. I see the results of his votes. I could have waited a few more years until he finally retired, but I don’t think the vulnerable constituents in his district can.

What has your experience in the House taught you about the legislative process?

The House is not for the faint-hearted. I learned the hard way that doing the right thing can be a punishable offense in the legislature. I learned that sometimes the surest sign you are on the right track is when you lose something you care about, like a committee chairmanship. But I was proud to lose points with leadership in the House for opposing bills that would ask even more sacrifices from Texans who can least afford them. I can hold my head up high at home in my district, even if I didn’t get the best assignments in Austin for the stands I took. My time in the House also taught me this about the legislative process: some bills must be blocked and killed when you have the chance. Moving a bad bill “through the process” just builds momentum that can’t be stopped in the end. That is what happened with HB 2292, and Frank Madla’s votes gave the beast its shot at life.

During the 78th Legislature, you took a strong stance against HB 2292 - a bill that consolidated many HHSC agencies, privatized call centers across the state, and denied health insurance to thousands of Texas children. What have you done, since 2003, to correct the problems you believe exist in this legislation?

I worked with many other concerned House members to ensure that we would put money back into the budget to improve coverage under CHIP and increase eligibility again. Unfortunately, with current leadership in place, we did not achieve all we wanted to. But even many Republicans could see that the shortsighted cuts that 2292 made were actually increasing the costs to their districts, so we had some good bipartisan support for those initiatives. I also demanded – and got – a restoration in child abuse and neglect prevention program funding. While these funds are still too low, we are back from the grave 2292 put us in with respect to child abuse prevention programs. I continue to join my colleagues in a call for a thorough examination of the outsourcing contracts that eliminated so many qualified state workers while creating expensive private sector systems that just don’t work. I intend to examine the state of these systems during the interim in preparation for filing new legislation to address these problems.

During this past session, you were very involved with the creation and passage of SB 6. Why did you feel this legislation was so important? Why is it OK for there to be privatization in SB 6, and not OK for there to be privatization in HB 2292?

SB 6 literally helps to ensure the future of our state by protecting our children. We have an enormous problem today in Texas, and frankly, around the world: It is child abuse and neglect, and it is destroying the fabric of our communities. As a legislator, I could not imagine a more important cause to advance in Austin than protecting those who cannot protect themselves. I also cannot imagine a better investment in the future of Texas. By spending funds now to protect and rehabilitate children from effects of child maltreatment, we can help avoid an endless list of costly social problems in the future. As a fiscally responsible legislator, and as a human being, SB 6 was one of the most important bills I have ever worked on.

To read the rest of Rep. Uresti's answer to this question, and to read his responses about his views on school finance reform, water issues, and how he plans to win the SD 19 primary race, click on the link below.

The privatization component in SB 6 was directly related to improving the quality and continuity of care for children in state custody. It was not done to cut costs at their expense, as was the case with the privatization efforts behind HB 2292. SB 6 did not create an overall net loss of state jobs; we reallocated and actually increased state jobs in that agency. But we did have to use some strategic and limited privatization measures to realign agency functions so that kids would be better cared for than they were under the old CPS system.

I have always been clear on this point: if privatization is a viable means of improving and protecting the lives of vulnerable citizens, and we have data that backs the use of privatization for that purpose, I will consider its use. Where SB 6 was concerned, privatization actually costs the state more money in the short term, but it also should produce better outcomes where saving kids’ lives is concerned. In contrast, HB 2292’s privatization plan led to a large-scale loss of state jobs, reduced service availability and quality throughout Texas, and was a boon to private sector for-profit companies at the taxpayer’s expense. The two bills couldn’t be more different in that respect.

What do you believe needs to be done about school finance and property tax reform?

We need to put all options on the table if we are going to have a serious, productive, and well informed debate on property tax reform. Voters need to know what kind of impact lowering property taxes will have if we aren’t careful: 90% of Texans will pay HIGHER taxes under the kinds of proposals Frank Madla has supported in the past. That isn’t fair to Texans, and it certainly isn’t good for District 19.
I support a thorough overhaul of the state’s franchise tax code to make sure we close loopholes that allow companies to reap the benefits of our public school system without paying their fair share. I think we need to look at other sources of tax revenue that are currently untapped, like an increase in the cigarette tax that I proposed last session; that would generate more than a billion new dollars for the state budget. We also have to consider using every viable means to increase efficiency in school administration so that every cent of every dollar is well spent. We owe that much to taxpayers; as a taxpayer myself, I expect nothing less. But the bottom line for me is this: I will not support lowering property taxes if it is done by passing on the cost to those who can least afford it through higher sales taxes and fees.

Beyond education and health care, what do you feel is the biggest issue for the constituents of SD 19?

Water. We need to get everyone at the table to address this issue. It’s a major problem anywhere in the country where high population growth is occurring. My opponent has cast some votes that really upset most of District 19; essentially he voted to remove citizens from the political process that controls the use and protection of their natural resources. I don’t believe that fits with the needs and traditions of District 19 or the State of Texas. It’s time for a dialogue between all the stakeholders that is guided by one central reality: we all need water and its supply is not endless. We have to embark on a new era of negotiations that stress the conservation, appropriate use, reclamation, and equitable distribution of this precious resource.

Why are you running for Senate District 19?

Texas is at a turning point. Like the rest of our Nation, we are rapidly becoming a state of haves and have-nots. Senate District 19 exemplifies the kind of missed opportunities that characterize our state in far too many places. The only way we are going to adapt to a global economy with opportunities that enrich everyone is by aggressively combating poverty, improving public health and education, protecting our natural resources, and investing in infrastructure that builds a foundation for future prosperity. I don’t see the tough votes being cast from District 19, the votes that demand better health care and education for our children; the votes that create a safety net for elderly and disabled Texans and our vets. I am running because I see years of missed opportunities going by, and a population in the district that can’t afford to wait any more for the future to arrive.

What do you see as the biggest challenges in your upcoming campaign? What separates you from your primary candidate, incumbent Senator Madla?

It is always an enormous challenge to battle an incumbent for a seat, especially one who’s been in that seat as long as Frank has. He has inertia on his side: a body at rest tends to stay at rest. He also has a good relationship with powerful special interests who want him to stay where he is.

What separates me from Frank is a vision for our district that includes everyone. My priest gave me a Bible verse some time ago which I taped to my desk where I can see it each day. It reads, “Without vision, the people will perish.” Our people are perishing. They are losing hope, jobs, security, and lives. It is time for a change. I have a vision for Texas and District 19 that includes everyone – not just those who are powerful and wealthy enough to influence events at the Capitol. I know the problems of those who are least able to defend themselves from the political forces in Austin, and I carry those people with me in my heart whenever I vote. I have vision for the kind of state we all deserve, and I won’t stop fighting for it.

How did your background as a marine help shape your leadership style?

The Marine Corps teaches you something that applies particularly well to political life: leaders are only respected when they respect those they lead. As an elected official, I realize that my first duty is to my constituents; I have to respect the fact that I work on their behalf, that I speak for them in Austin, and that it is my duty to vote in their best interests when a bill comes before me. Marines also have a slogan I take to heart every day: Semper Fi, or always faithful. I am always faithful to those I lead and to their priorities; that is my solemn duty as their elected official.

My time in the Corps taught me to take responsibility for my actions, to own up to the consequences of my conduct as a public official and leader. No one expects perfect performance from any human being all the time, much less from elected officials. But as a Marine, I demand that political leaders, including myself, are held accountable to the people for their conduct and votes – and my opponent has some bad votes to account for.

One of the best lessons I took away from the Marine Corps is to pass leadership skills on to others. I guess I learned that lesson pretty well: my son Carlitos just joined the Corps, and recently left us to begin his career as a Marine. We’re very proud of him.

During your campaign, how do you plan to connect with the large percentage of voters that live in rural areas of Texas you have never represented?

I have been fortunate to have so many folks approach me from those areas, people who are eager for a change after so many years of inaction in Senate District 19. My campaign is well connected to those rural areas, and in many cases, they came to us with the hope that things might finally change. I’ve been traveling throughout the district since last year, making connections with the voters all over District 19, and we are all connecting on one basic point: we need new energy and vision coming from our Senate district.

Juan Garcia Kicks Off Campaign Tomorrow

By Damon McCullar

Navy veteran and lawyer Juan Garcia kicks off his campaign for state rep tomorrow with none other than Gen. Wesley Clark. The campaign kickoff is at 4pm at the Selena Auditorium in Corpus Christi.

I had an opportunity to speak to Juan last night in a phone interview.

DM: When did you first consider running for public office?

JG: Starting about a year! ago, I started receiving emails encouraging me to run and folks from around the state started making the trip down to Corpus to make the case for why it was important, and why it made sense to run for this seat. But the fact is I've always felt a calling to serve, and that's why after graduating from law school I went to naval flight training. If ever somehow involved down the road in making that most sacred of decisions, whether to send young men and women into harm's way, I think it's important
to have taken a turn yourself.

DM: Why state rep? Why not city council or governor or anything else
in between?

JG: When I was first approached about running for office, it was in terms of an open US Senate seat (because Senator Hutchinson was rumored to be running for governor). I was intrigued, and very interested in talking about the war, and the issues surrounding it. But as we all know, that didn't happen, and to try and raise the massive warchest necessary to compete with an entrenched, incumbent U.S. Senator, especially as a first-time candidate, just didn't make sense. But I feel that I can make an immediate difference in the Texas House. On the heels of a string of failed sessions dedicated to education, I think there's a unique opportunity here to impact schooling throughout Texas.

DM: Tell me about your family?
JG: My Dad is a retired navy pilot from Robstown, the next little town past Corpus. He flew A-7 attack jets, and he used to always say that if he'd been there with an A-7, the Alamo would have been a whole different story. The Navy has a tradition called a "Tiger Cruise," in which the aircraft carrier, after a deployment to the Gulf, pulls into Pearl Harbor, and family members board the ship, and ride it back home into San Diego. I did a Tiger Cruise aboard the USS Constellation with my dad when I was 8 years old, and that's really where I got the bug to fly. 25 years later I got to return the
favor, when he was my guest aboard the Constellation. My wife and I met as classmates at Harvard Law School. She grew up in New
York, and settling down in my hometown in South Texas was a tough sell for her initially, but she's come to love it. We have four kids, the oldest being 7-year old twins: three boys and a daughter, whom if my plan holds, will enter the Convent when she's 16.

DM: Tell me about your naval career?

JG: I spent 13 years on active duty, and left in October 2004 as a
Lieutenant Commander. I was a pilot, did a couple deployments to the Gulf, and served as the aide-de-camp to the deputy Commander in
Chief of U.S. Naval Forces in Europe. I'm still serving as an Instructor Pilot in the Naval Reserve, teaching the Navy's newest pilots to fly, right here at Naval Air Station Corpus Christi. (My youngest brother is a newly-commissioned officer in the Navy and reports to flight training in a couple weeks. We're hoping we get to fly together - in which case he will
see the inside of his stomach!).

DM: Gen. Wesley Clark is coming to your campaign kickoff, what is
your relationship to him?

JG: I served under his command during Kosovo, and later got to know him when was selected to be a White House Fellow. He was a White House Fellow as well, and later served on the board that selects future Fellows. He's got one of the most amazing bio's in American public life, and I'm honored that he's making the trip down to the Coastal Bend for my event.

This Is Just Too Funny Not To Pass On

By Vince Leibowitz

Thanks to Google News Alerts I still have active on a bunch of now-former congressmen, I was directed to SFist.com, a San Franscisco blog which today had a post up about a local election there and discussed Christine Pelosi (daughter of Nancy Pelosi). I could not figure out why this was emailed to me as a news alert for "Max Sandlin" until I read this (all links and puncuation, etc., are from the source):

Christine Pelosi, whose mother you may have heard of, is a former San Francisco deputy DA who is now active with the Democratic party. In her day job, Christine serves as Chief of Staff to Congressman John Tierney (D-Mass.) (who her mother then appointed to the Intelligence committee) and used to date (scroll down) Texas Democratic congressman Max Sandlin (during which time her mother appointed him to the Ways and Means committee). Sandlin, 63, lost his bid for reelection last year (and is now dating a representative from South Dakota. What a player!).

Strangely enough, the funniest thing in the post, to me, was that Max Sandlin was listed as being 63 years old. Hello...look at the guy! Via Wikipedia, try 53.

I just couldn't resist correcting an out-of-state blogger on the real age of one of our former Congressmen.

Bell Campaign Endorsed By Garnet Coleman

By Vince Leibowitz

Chris Bell's campaign today announced another high-octane Texas legislative endorsement today: Garnet Coleman.

Coleman had this to say about Bell:

In the last legislative session, Houstonian Scott Hochberg offered a now famous amendment on the school finance bill that demonstrated the devastating power of a good idea. Another Houstonian, my friend Chris Bell, has brought the power of bright ideas to his campaign. My friend has some great ideas about how we can get Texas moving in the right direction again, which is why today I am proud to endorse Chris for Texas Governor.

And, for those who were criticizing the Bell campaign in the comments yesterday for not having any issues, here are a few that Coleman spotlighted in endorsing Bell:

Right now legislative pensions are tied to judicial salaries, meaning that we lawmakers give ourselves a pension increase when we raise judges’ pay. Meanwhile, teacher pay is abysmally low. Chris has proposed linking legislative pensions to teacher pay to provide an extra incentive for state legislators to raise teacher pay.

Right now we send Texas National Guardsmen and women into overseas combat with a salute, a pat on the back, and not much else. Chris has proposed that the state reimburse these heroes for their life insurance premiums to protect their families’ financial securitt.

Right now college students are compensating for skyrocketing tuition by buying only some of their textbooks. Chris has embraced the common-sense idea of making college textbooks tax-free to make it a little easier.

And this one is near and dear to my heart—the Texas Enterprise Fund is a slush fund for corporate welfare, plain and simple. The State of Texas has spent $217 million of the people’s money to create, as of last year, a miniscule 275 jobs. That’s a pretty pathetic return on a sizable investment. Instead, Chris wants to fully fund the Skills Development Fund that partners Texas community colleges with existing small businesses for job training programs. This program has financed training for 15,559 new jobs and 28,832 existing jobs at a cost of only $900 per job over the last three years. And the best part is that this program helps existing Texas businesses, not out-of-state corporations.

Finally, our public schools are treating standardized tests like they’re the cure and not a diagnosis. The Perry administration is using high-stakes testing to teach our kids, but that works as well as using a thermometer to lower a fever. The result of this blind loyalty to Enron-style accountability is the country’s top dropout rate, which in turn has created a School-to-Prison Pipeline that has filled our prisons and emptied half a generation of its promise. Chris Bell wants Texas to have the best public schools in the country, and he wants to start by getting away from the high-stakes nature of these tests and giving control of classrooms back to teachers and principals where it belongs.

And, by way of an update on yesterday's post on Bell demanding Strayhorn return the money she got from James Leininger, Kuff has more, including a link to a Houston Chronicle story on the topic. And, the Chron's not the only outlet picking this up. It's received good coverage state wide, to wit: Dallas Morning News; Brownsville Herald; KLTV Tyler; KWTX (Waco/Temple); and KRIS-TV (Corpus Christi).