Great news from Jason Embry in First Reading -- Democrats may have a very strong Lieutenant Governor candidate in 2010: Linda Chavez-Thomspon. A strong Democrat from San Antonio, Chavez-Thompson would bring some immediate firepower to the No. 2 spot on our ticket -- and give Democrats even more to get excited about in next year's statewide elections.
From First Reading:
Linda Chavez-Thompson, a former executive vice president of the AFL-CIO, is leaning toward running for lieutenant governor as a Democrat, according to multiple sources familiar with her plans.
The San Antonio resident, born and raised in the Lubbock area, is now executive vice president emerita of the labor organization and is also a vice chair of the Democratic National Committee. She was also a super-delegate during the 2008 presidential primary.
Among Democrats who know about her plans, there is already considerable excitement about a Chavez-Thompson bid. The thinking goes that her personal story — she quit school in the ninth grade so she could start working and earn money for her family — creates a contrast with Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, the wealthy Republican incumbent. (Of course, it’s worth pointing out that Dewhurst wasn’t born into wealth). And as someone who has risen to the top of the national labor movement and the top of the national Democratic Party, Chavez-Thompson has a myriad of contacts within the party from whom she can raise money. Plus, she is well-known in the San Antonio area.
Chavez-Thompson was born in the Lubbock area in 1944. According to her bio, she:
Worked in cotton fields as a ten year-old, and had to drop out of school in 9th grade to support her family.
At age 19, she took a job as a house cleaner and worked for $1 an hour.
Four years later, in 1967, she took a secretarial position with the Lubbock local chapter of the Laborers' International Union
In 1971 -- after proving invaluable as a bilingual union worker -- she went to work for ASFCME in Austin, then in San Antonio. By 1977, she was executive director of the San Antonio office.
Then her story really gets incredible:
Word quickly spread of the powerhouse Latina who was winning battles for workers throughout the state, and soon Chavez-Thompson was in demand for her negotiation and organizational skills. She saved the jobs of 33 community college workers by bringing about the public ouster of three trustees whose financial abuses the workers had reported. Chavez-Thompson organized emergency drivers to cover for workers on a wildcat strike, driving one of the trucks herself, and became known as a union representative who would risk arrest at protests and on picket lines to help the people she represented.
By all accounts, Linda Chavez-Thompson is the emodiment of a community organizer who has made a difference not only in Texas, but across the country. Her narrative is inspiring -- someone who has overcome every disadvantage in her path to improve the lives of those in her community. Contrasted with the exceedingly wealthy David Dewhurst, it provides an incredible contrast in the Lieutenant Governor's race for Democrats.
More on this later in the afternoon...but if Linda Chavez-Thompson does decide to get in the race, we could have the best 1-2 punch on our ticket in decades.
Key Point: While Democrats in the State Senate could hope that Dewhurst, Ogden, or any other Republican left in charge would be fair in 2011, there is really no evidence for that. It may end up being that the only way Senators can preserve Senate traditions like the 2/3's rule -- that allows individual Senators of both political parties to impact major policy decisions - is for Senate Democrats to file for or work to elect a mainstream Democratic Lieutenant Governor who could build a centrist coalition with moderate Republicans to fix the problem at the source. While having a Democratic Lieutenant Governor would not change the fact that 16 Republican Senators could change Senate rules to eliminate the 2/3 rule or create a "Majority Leader" position, it would eliminate a problem rooted in the animosity against the current presiding officer -- and a capable Democratic statewide winner would have an opportunity to build a coalition of sixteen Senators who would put problem solving above rank partisanship.
With the expected announcement this Friday that Bill White will decide to run for Governor, discussions have begun to shift towards who will run for Lieutenant Governor. Having a strong candidate atop the ticket is the #1 priority for Democrats statewide -- but closely following at #2 is the Lieutenant Governor's spot, where Texas Democrats must find a serious candidate to take charge of the Texas Senate before the far-right wing of the Republican caucus gets there first.
The balance of power in the Texas Senate strongly favors Republicans. With a 19-12 advantage, Republicans hold a strong majority. Traditionally, the minority in the Senate was able to use the 2/3 rule -- where no legislation will come to the Senate floor unless 2/3 of the Senators agree to it -- to block over-reaching and or highly partisan legislation put forth by the majority. However, Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst partnered with Republican State Senator Tommy Williams during the last legislative session to obliterate the 2/3 rule for voter ID -- a purely partisan maneuver that, ultimately, spelled devastation for the entire Legislative session.
Harvey Kronberg, writing for News 8 Austin, on "Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst Controversy", explained the details of Dewhurst's sneaky maneuver -- and how his failures to preside over the Senate chamber have lost him the trust of many, if not most, of those in the Texas Senate:
[David Dewhurst's] denials notwithstanding, most in the Capitol now believe that Dewhurst conspired with Sen. Tommy Williams to trick the other senators on the first day of the session. Williams surprised his colleagues by proposing a new rule mandating the Senate take up voter ID, a bill that Democrats otherwise had the votes to block.
[...]
Dewhurst's erraticism, lack of concentration and inability to keep a schedule were the talk of almost every senator. He was rarely in the chair. By most reports, he was inconsistent and dismissive in his dealings with Speaker Joe Straus. He surprised and blindsided the House by not sending more than 400 bills in those critical final days.
Dewhurst also faced a strong challenge from his colleagues by refusing to set legislation on the Calendar that had the support of more than 2/3 of the State Senators. Republican State Senator Jeff Wentworth went so far as to boldly announce, in the Austin American-Statesman, that "we're not going to put up with this any longer":
“If I have anything to say about it, we’re going to change the rules come January 2011,” Wentworth said.
[...]
He added, “We’re not going to put up with this any longer. There are a number of senators that I’ve already spoken to that agree with me. It only takes 16 senators to adopt rules.”
David Dewhurst's reliance on purely partisan politics, and foregoing long-lasting Senate rules at his own political whim, are reason enough for him to be defeated at the polls. Yet, some Democrats in the State Senate -- including those who could consider a run against Dewhurst for Lieutenant Governor, now that it looks like Bill White will be atop the ticket -- believe that if they run against Dewhurst, they will lose the power to negotiate on the critical legislation coming up in 2011. Along with redistricting and the upcoming state budget disaster, nearly a half-dozen major state agencies are up for Sunset review. Working behind the scenes -- the way the Senate operates -- can be more difficult to broker if a Senator just beat up the presiding officer for a year on the campaign trail.
However -- there is one option that is even worse than having to negotiate with Dewhurst again, and that's having to negotiate with a Republican Majority Leader.
Paul Burka, writing on Texas Monthly's BurkaBlog, wrote extensively about how Senate Republicans are considering creating the position of "Majority Leader" to go around Dewhurst's authority -- not to mention any minority power Texas Democrats would control through the 2/3 rule:
Republicans have grown weary of his eccentricities and his AWOL leadership, and part of their caucus discussions has been about changing the rules to transfer power from the lite gov to the caucus, presumably to a senator who would act as majority leader. [...]
We could be on the verge of seeing momentous changes in the Senate—changes that would completely change the way that the upper chamber operates. The radical Republicans are in a position to exploit their caucus colleagues’ disdain for Dewhurst to end the tradition of a strong lieutenant governor and transfer his power to the caucus leadership; they can change the rules in the Senate to eliminate the two-thirds rule and to operate by special orders when the normal course of business does not produce the results they want....
The radicals signaled their intentions with the Voter ID play at the start of the 81st Legislature: They want to change the rules in the Senate so that they have complete control over policymaking and the Democrats are frozen out. The majority of the caucus may well go along. I don’t think Dewhurst wants to stick around and watch all this happen.
The possibility of changing the rules to create a "Majority Leader" is very real. If Senator Jeff Wentworth -- by far one of the most moderate in the Texas Senate -- has already publicly declared his intention to limit some of Dewhurst's power. The question, then, becomes who would become this new majority leader?
Steve Ogden could be one -- he is ideologically similar to the block of Senators that want to create a "Majority Leader" position, the Statesman has written that he "wields ultimate authority" in the Senate, and he could promise to only serve two years until 2012 -- when, perhaps, Dewhurst would be running for Hutchison's (finally) vacant U.S. Senate seat, and someone else can run the Upper Chamber. One thing is certain -- should he decide to return, he's not going to sit quietly. He'll want to be in charge, in a big way.
Add everything up, and what it looks like is that Texas Democrats will be facing one of two people in charge of the State Senate in 2011:
David Dewhurst -- Who is ineffective, untrusted, and has shown the willingness to eliminate the Senate's long respected 2/3 rule -- something he will surely do for redistricting in 2011, and possibly on other major issues.
Steve Ogden -- Who, in many ways is worse than Dewhurst -- remember, he went so far as to try and sneak a rider to ban appropriations for stem cell research in the budget, despite objections from Democrats and Republicans -- because he shares the same ideological zeal yet manages to earn respect despite of it for his ability to do what Dewhurst cannot -- manage and corral the Texas Senate to action.
While Democrats in the State Senate could hope that Dewhurst, Ogden, or any other Republican left in charge would be fair in 2011, there is really no evidence for that. It may end up being that -- for any State Senate Democrat hoping to pass the best policies possible in 2011 -- their best chance for action would be to file for Lieutenant Governor and attempt to fix the problem at the source. And while having a Democratic Lieutenant Governor does not change the fact that only 16 Senators are needed for any change to the Senate rules (including the creation of a "Majority Leader" position), it would eliminate the animosity against the current presiding officer -- which is the source of the problem for both Republicans and Democrats in the Senate.
Texas Democrats must find a passionate, intelligent, and strong-willed candidate of substance to challenge David Dewhurst in the 2010 general election. If we don't, we will be heading into 2011 -- facing a massive state budget crisis, redistricting, the sunset review of numerous key state agencies, another possible voter ID fight, and more -- with the proven failure of David Dewhurst in charge, or, what could be even worse: a Republican Majority Leader operating under dramatically different Senate rules.
Today, State Representative Jim Dunnam, who is Chair of the House Select Committee on Federal Economic Stabilization Funding, penned a Statesman in the op-ed knocking Dewhurst and Perry for their blatant hypocrisy. From his op-ed, titled, "Texas a fiscal wonderland? Now that's pure fantasy"
The problem with much of the current Republican Party leadership is not that they disagree with Democrats. The real problem is that they disagree with reality.
By shamelessly pretending that in is out and up is down, they have spun themselves into Wonderland.
Whether you like the stimulus or not, this misinformation is getting out of hand.
You should really read the entire op-ed -- Chairman Dunnam does a great job detailing all of Perry's hypocrisy.
Texas Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst wrote an op-ed in today's Austin American-Statesman where he attempts to spin a lie that Texas didn't need stimulus dollars to balance the budget.
Given recent comments about our state's budget, I feel it is time to separate fact from political fiction. The fact is, in stark contrast to the U. S. Congress, the Texas Constitution requires the Legislature to balance the state budget every two years, and that would have happened with or without any federal stimulus dollars.
In 2007, I led the effort to save $7 billion to balance the revenue shortfall we anticipated this year.
So it's simply political fiction that stimulus dollars were necessary to balance our budget.
OK then Dewhurst -- how would you have balanced the budget without using the $14 billion in federal stimulus dollars?
To balance the budget, he's either got to cut spending or raid the Rainy Day Fund -- but the Rainy Day Fund wouldn't have filled a $14 billion budget hole. So what would Dewhurst have cut?
Kicked more kids off of CHIP?
Further gutted public education spending?
Dewhurst has no answer to this at all.
Meanwhile -- while Dewhurst is out spinning lies to cover his and every other Texas Republican's political hide when Rick Perry is rallying against Washington at the same time he's accepting $14 billion to fill a budget hole that he created -- his Senate Finance Chair, Steve Ogden, is actually telling the truth.
"In order to balance the budget this biennium, which is $182 billion, we used $14 billion in federal stimulus money to balance it," said Sen. Steve Ogdenm R-Bryan. "We're not expecting a similar amount of similar money to be available in the next two years because the federal government just doesn't have it. So, assuming that's true, you go into the next session with a $14 billion hole."
According to the State Comptroller's office, Texas requested and was allocated almost $20 billion in federal stimulus funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment ACt, and has so far been awarded about $13 billion. About $3.6 billion has been received, and nearly all of the received funds have been spent.
If David Dewhurst really wants to claim that Texas didn't need the stimulus funds, then he should produce a budget that shows what he would have cut. But he'll never do that, because this isn't about leadership or fiscal responsibility or being honest about how Texas Republicans play a shall game with Texas' taxpayer dollars.
It's about political power, and political wars -- and Dewhurst, Perry, Strauss, and every other Texas Republican is going to rally against Big Bad Washington while silently singing President Obama and the Democratic Congress' praises that they bailed Texas out of a massive $14 billion budget hole.
Don't believe Dewhurst' spin -- and don't believe it when you hear it repeated for the next year in the press, in local elections, in campaign forums, or on the campaign trail. The Republican-led legislature was only able to balance the budget because of federal stimulus dollars.
Remember -- I didn't say it. The Republican Senate Finance Chair did.
Texas cannot keep up with the demand of those in need of food stamps. According to Lisa Falkenberg of the Houston Chronicle it is taking months to obtain benefits. Folks are growing more desperate by the day.
Meanwhile, Texas isn't coming close to meeting federal requirements to process food stamp applications within a month. Last month, about 38,000 new applicants were left awaiting approval even though the federal deadline had passed. About one in six applications is processed incorrectly.
Food Stamps are 100% funded by the Federal Government. All Texas has to do is distribute the funds. Unfortunately due to either incompetence, stinginess or cold-hearted contempt for the state's struggling jobless, Texas is not doing its job.
Marc Katz, the Katz's Deli owner who lost a 2003 bid to be Austin's mayor, announced yesterday he would run for the Democratic nomination for Lt. Governor.
Katz, a New York City native who has lived in Texas since the mid-1970s, becomes the first Democrat to enter the race. The Republican field is not entirely set either, as incumbent David Dewhurst continues to weigh a Senate bid (or await an appointment). If Dewhurst does not run for reelection, Attorney General Greg Abbott is widely expected to run for Lt. Gov.
“I know that I can make a huge difference for Texas,” Katz said. “Being the Pastrami King and lieutenant governor is similar. Decisions should be made on the basis of what’s best for this state. As a small business owner I understand that.
“There’s been enough decisions, and that’s all there’s been. There’s been no action.”
In his campaign, Katz said he intends to stress health care reform, increased teacher pay and lower taxes for smaller businesses.
“This state needs to run like a business” Katz said. “Teachers should be the most elite profession, but they’re not. There are counties in this state without a doctor.
Let’s show a bottom line. If you could show me where you’re making the state better, we could afford you. Otherwise, we can’t.”
Katz also told the Statesman he expected to raise as much as $10 million for the race and would focus primarily on "$50 and $100 donations."
Democrats finally have a candidate for Lt. Governor. Whether it is the one the party will ultimately nominate, however, remains to be seen.
While appearing on a Dallas talk radio show this morning, U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison told host Mark Davis that she expected to resign her seat in the Senate in October or November.
Davis: So you’ll be coming out at some point. When do you think its decision time for you? When would you like when might we know?
Hutchison: I’m going to announce in August. Formal announcement I am in. Then the actual leaving of the Senate will be sometime – October/November – that-- in that time frame.
While it first should be said that Hutchison has said plenty of things over the years and many skeptics will not be convinced until she actually resigns, this is the closest Hutchison herself has come to setting a real timetable for an exit from the Senate.
Once Hutchison resigns, the non-existent U.S. Senate race we have been reporting about for months will suddenly have an election date and a new incumbent, as Gov. Rick Perry will be able appoint someone to fill the term between the resignation and the special election.
Who would Perry pick? Many Republicans aeem to be waiting to see who Perry picks before they decide to back a candidate. If Perry picks someone like Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, who would be able to self-finance his campaign with millions of dollars, it is hard to imagine Republican candidates who have so far been fundraising failures, like Railroad Commissioners Michael Williams and Elizabeth Ames Jones, being very competitive.
The campaign spokesman for former Secretary of State Roger Williams, who was a Perry apointee, recently speculated that Williams' relatively strong fundraising quarter could put him in a good position to receive the appointment. Clearly, Perry will be looking to back a winning horse and given his options, he may decide Dewhurst, for all the Lieutenant Governor's flaws, is his best bet.
Gardner Selby wrote last week that Perry was considering calling a special election much earlier than many had assumed, potentially calling for an election before the end of the year.
Under the law, if the governor determines that an emergency warrants holding a special election before the uniform election date, then it can be on a nonuniform date as long as the governor identifies the nature of the emergency.
Translation: The election can happen any day the governor pleases.
And should Hutchison step down, Perry would consider setting an election shortly. Perry spokeswoman Allison Castle told me, "If a vacancy were to occur, the governor would be inclined to call an election soon to ensure Texans are fully represented" in Washington.
While it is fun (and exhausting) to speculate about the many scenarios that could play out following Hutchison's resignation, we have learned over the years that with Hutchison there is often a disconnect between words and actions.
When State Sen. Florence Shapiro (R-Plano) first announced her U.S. Senate exploratory committee in July 2008, she had the support of twelve other Republican state senators.
At the time, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst had made no public comment on whether he would consider entering the possible special election to fill Kay Bailey Hutchison's senate seat.
Fast forward almost a year and a couple things have changed. First, Dewhurst recently finally did make a statement leaving the door open to a run for the U.S. Senate, in an interview with the Austin American-Statesman.
"If the Senate job came open, I would probably give it a hard look," [Dewhurst] said. "I think that seat needs to stay in Republican hands."
As Dewhurst, the presiding officer of the Texas State Senate and a two term Republican statewide office holder with deep pockets, made his possible interest in the Senate seat known, you might have expected some of the Republican state senators to begin to waffle on their early committments to Shapiro.
Instead, the opposite happened. Shapiro picked up the endorsements of Sens. Kip Averitt and Mike Jackson, leaving Steve Ogden, Dan Patrick, Jeff Wentworth and Tommy Williams as the only Republican senators not publicly backing Shapiro's candidacy.
Given that Wentworth has been telling that newspapers that Dewhurst should not "abuse that power we give him," it is probably safe to say the San Antonio Republican is not eagerly awaiting a Dewhurst Senate candidacy, either.
So either (1) David Dewhurst has so little respect among the members of the legislative body he has presided over for two terms that nearly none of them want to support him for higher office or (2) he is not running for the U.S. Senate.
Of course, if not the former, it certainly could be both.
Key Question: Just two days after publishing an accurately critical quote by Republican Senator Jeff Wentworth about Republican Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst, why did the Statesman publish an entire fluff piece on Dewhurst on the front page of its paper that not only ignored the original story, but was co-written by Dewhurst himself?
Is this what a wink and a nod between failed elected officials and yellow newspaper editors looks like in the 21st century?
Here's what happened:
Monday, June 29: The Statesman reports that Republican Senator Jeff Wentworth says that the Senate is "not going to put up with" Dewhurst trampling the will of the Senate for his own partisan favors for Governor Rick Perry any longer.
And I'm not joking about Dewhurst writing 1/3 of the front page story. Mike Ward's love letter to David Dewhurst that appeared on the front page of the Austin American-Statesman on Wednesday July 1 was disgusting. The reportstoryprofile promotional flyer -- titled, "Dewhurst: Senate could conclude business in two days" -- was written largely by the Republican official that was the subject of the story.
Don't believe me? Let's look at some facts:
804 words are in the story, total
270 words are direct quotes of David Dewhurst
0 words are quotes from anyone other than Dewhurst
0 words challenge anything Dewhurst says
Dewhurst claims the session was a huge success -- and there is not a single word to challenge that. Not one.
Really, Statesman?
No one who works for the Statesman thought that it might be responsible journalism to follow up with Dewhurst about the fact that a leading Republican State Senator from Central Texas, -- the area the Statesman covers -- declared, "We're not going to put up with this any longer" about Dewhurst? Dewhurst was the sole subject of the entire article -- and you couldn't ask him one question about the remarks you'd reported only two days before?
[Republican State Senator Jeff Wentworth] added, “We’re not going to put up with this any longer. There are a number of senators that I’ve already spoken to that agree with me. It only takes 16 senators to adopt rules.”
Wentworth said Dewhurst told him that Gov. Rick Perry talked to him 20 times about stopping the legislation. And he said former Sen. Ken Armbrister, who works for Perry, “cajoled and threatened” six senators into opposing the measure, giving Dewhurst the cover he needed to not bring up the bill. (Asked about all this, Dewhurst spokesman Rich Parsons said only that the bill did not have the votes necessary to be called up).
Wentworth said there is an unwritten understanding between senators and the lieutenant governor that if 21 senators are willing to debate a bill, Dewhurst will recognize the appropriate senator to bring it up.
“The lieutenant governor should not abuse that power that we give him,” Wentworth said. “He should not have given his word to Perry that he would kill that bill.”
Pretty heavy accusations from one of Central Texas' State Senators. But was there any follow-up about that in the front page story on Wednesday? Nope. Instead, David Dewhurst got an 804-word direct mail piece sent to the door of thousands upon thousands of Texans, bought and paid for by the Austin American-Statesman.
His denials notwithstanding, most in the Capitol now believe that Dewhurst conspired with Sen. Tommy Williams to trick the other senators on the first day of the session. Williams surprised his colleagues by proposing a new rule mandating the Senate take up voter ID, a bill that Democrats otherwise had the votes to block.
The Williams play ultimately led to a session-killing filibuster in the House, by a handful of Democrats. But if Dewhurst was blindsided by Williams as he said, why did he reward him with one of the most important chairmanships at his disposal – Senate Administration?
Perhaps it was because of his upcoming wedding in June and the preparations were distracting. But Dewhurst's erraticism, lack of concentration and inability to keep a schedule were the talk of almost every senator. He was rarely in the chair. By most reports, he was inconsistent and dismissive in his dealings with Speaker Joe Straus.
Dewhurst told reporters Wednesday afternoon that he was “looking for a vehicle” for CHIP expansion, he received some help.
Journalist Harvey Kronberg, whose online “Quorum Report” is must reading in the capital, quickly posted an item pointing out, as he had earlier in the day, that Coleman’s bill was available in the Finance Committee.
Thursday afternoon Dewhurst said Coleman’s criticism was “premature.” Dewhurst said Thursday evening the bill could be revived, but he was exaggerating.
Was it a deliberate charade or callous stupidity?
Does it matter, since Gov. Rick Perry appeared ready to veto the bill anyway?
Yes, it matters. It was a test of either character or competence. Dewhurst and Ogden flunked.
Sounds like a lot of controversy surrounding Dewhurst's role in the last session, doesn't it?
Yet does Mike Ward or the editors at the Statesman bring any of that into context? Not even a little. Instead, this talking point from Dewhurst is published unchallenged on the front page of the Austin American-Statesman:
As for the regular session, Dewhurst insisted that despite a last-minute partisan fight in the House that killed hundreds of bills and left the legislative process in chaos at the end, it was successful for the upper chamber.
"For the Senate and myself, this was almost a textbook perfect session," he said. "We addressed all of our important legislation early, got it passed — even though some Democrats filibustered and killed 200-plus of our Senate bills."
804 words are in the story, total
270 words are direct quotes of David Dewhurst
0 words are quotes from anyone other than Dewhurst
0 words challenge anything Dewhurst says
Oh, and by the way -- this just puts the icing on the cake.
Statesman writer Mike Ward, following the fluff piece that ran Wednesday morning, followed it up with not one, but two blog posts about Dewhurst's wedding the previous weekend. Even Ward, thinking it was cute and recognizing his fan-boy obsession with Dewhurst, closes his final love letter to The Dew with the following:
You asked Statesman.com for more details. We asked Dewhurst.
“What are you, TMZ?” quipped a staffer standing nearby.
Don't flatter yourself, Mike. TMZ would be a welcome change of professionalism.
R.G. Ratcliffe has answer the question for us, "how much would a special session cost Texans?"
Answer: $30,000 per day.
When Perry calls the anticipated special session to extend the life of the five agencies, it will cost taxpayers another $30,408 a day for lawmakers to finish their incomplete business.
Ratcliffe writes a detailed story about the real costs of operations at the capitol. While the 140 day regular session only costs $9.1 million dollars, a special session could cost tax payers an additional $900,000 if the session runs 30 days.
Simply put, Lt Gov. David Dewhurst, Speaker Joe Straus, and Governor Rick Perry's failure to lead is literally costing tax payers.
Rick Perry has been the Governor of Texas since George W. Bush became President in 2000. He officially assumed the top spot December 21, 2000. Since becoming Governor, there have been 7 special sessions-- 3 in 2005 to deal with education financing, 3 in 2003 to deal with redistricting and 1 more in 2004 to finish off the job.
Now we are looking at an 8th special session in Perry's long tenure as Governor. That is nearly 2 specials called for every regular session. This time we are going to spend $30,000+ a day because of a failure to pass necessary language to keep the Texas Department of Transportation, Department of Insurance, Office of Public Insurance Counsel, the Texas Racing Commission or the State Affordable Housing Corporation alive.
Now taxpayers are required to pay for a lack of leadership from the Republican Party... again.
