(Great post from Back to Basics PAC, who continue to hammer on Perry's abuse of the public trust and our tax dollars. - promoted by Katherine Haenschen)
Rick Perry did a funny thing yestoday - he actually responded to his critics. In the past few days, our friends at Progress Texas and Democratic Caucus chair Rep. Jessica Farrar called on Perry to pay back the approximately $2,651,429.14 that his presidential campaign burned through in security costs. This confounding sum wasn't paid for by the Perry campaign though - it was your tax dollars. And the Perry campaign's answer?
The Department of Public Safety has a policy of providing security for governors and their families everywhere they travel ... These policies are determined by DPS and not the governor's office.
Apparently, it was also the policy of longtime Perry ally and civil liberties foe Steve McCraw to insist on keeping the travel security costs secret. It was so important to keep the public from knowing what was in those records that both Perry and Anita spent time during the June special session pressing for a measure to keep the records sealed for 18 months. In other words, until after the 2012 election. According to an August story from the Washington Post:
One Republican legislator, who spoke on condition of anonymity, described the governor as "extremely concerned" about keeping his records sealed, and said Perry was actively lobbying key legislators to get it passed in the waning days of the special session. The legislator said Perry's wife, Anita, also was pressing legislators on the issue.
But Perry didn't have to stick Texas taxpayers with the bill for his security. Presidential campaigns typically pay for private security services. Or he could have requested Secret Service protection, as former candidate Herman Cain did in November 2011. Although he may not have met the requirements for protection - the law stipulates that a candidate must have "national prominence," along with other qualifying factors.
So what was that security money spent on exactly, and was it worth it to fulfill Rick Perry's calling? Maybe we'll find out - after the election.
State Representative Jessica Farrar (D-Houston) asked Governor Perry to pay back the state over $2.6 million in tax payer funded security expenses accrued during his ill-fated run for the Republican presidential nomination. She has also requested he repay the $92,376 pension he earned last year for the simple reason that he is not (sadly) yet retired.
Here is the full text of her letter:
Dear Governor Perry:
I want to be the first person to welcome you back to Texas. We have a lot of work to do for our great state, and I know you are ready to get started.
I have a few ideas as to where we should begin our work, but first I want to make a confession to you, and it's a big one. Okay, here it goes: I... am a fiscal conservative. Yes, I admit it.
As a fiscal conservative, I believe government is supposed to be a wise steward of tax dollars. I believe that if the government must spend money, it should be for essential public services, like education, infrastructure, health services for the young and elderly, and disaster relief. I believe that unnecessary government spending is not just morally wrong, it is criminal. Tax dollars do not belong to the government or elected officials; tax dollars belong to taxpayers.
One way to protect taxpayers' money is by not spending it unnecessarily. But, if someone discovers tax dollars have been spent unnecessarily, it should be reimbursed either to general revenue or directly to taxpayers. With this in mind, I suggest you reimburse Texas taxpayers for the money you spent on travel expenses leading up to your withdraw from the GOP primary race. As of mid-January, you spent approximately $2.6 million of taxpayer money.
Additionally, because I know you take pride in being a fellow fiscal conservative, please also return the $92,376 in "retirement" pension you received last year, despite the fact that you have not retired.
Please submit to the Texas Comptroller's Office a check in the amount of $2,692,376, plus any other expenses related to your out-of-state campaign activity that you charged to Texas taxpayers.
Given that $2,692,376 million amounts to about ten cents for each Texan, direct reimbursement from the Comptroller to taxpayers does not seem like a wise expenditure of taxpayers' money - stamps are expensive these days. Instead, we could put that money back into classrooms, health services, or disaster relief services. I am open to your suggestions.
As a fellow fiscal conservative, I look forward to working with you during your final term as Texas governor to identify ways to eliminate unnecessary government spending. We have a lot of work to do, so let's get started before you leave.
Very sincerely,
Jessica Farrar
State Representative, District 148
Remember, a few things happened (wildfires, historic drought, etc) while Perry was embarrassing himself and our state while wasting taxpayers' money during his train wreck of a campaign.
Progress Texas has a petition up here to tell Perry to pay back Texas the taxpayer dollars he wasted “on on airfare, baggage fees, food and even parking during his failed 160 day Presidential campaign.”
Just when you thought you were finished listening to old white dudes talk about what is best for a woman’s body, the sonogram bill (a somewhat different and stricter version of it, if you can believe that) is back up for debate on the House Floor today, and yes my ears are burning.
What this bill (HB 15 by Sid Miller R-Erath) actually does is require a woman to have a sonogram between 72-24 hours before an abortion procedure is performed. The Department of State Health Services is required to come up with a form for the doctor to administer to the patient requiring her signature and initials at least three different times to make sure that the doctor described certain things and showed the patient certain things.
The DSHS is also required to give a list of abortion alternatives to the patient after the sonogram is administered, at magically no cost to the state! Officially the fiscal note to the bill ie. the budgetary cost of the bill to the State of Texas, is zero dollars, and it is just assumed that the DSHS will just absorb this cost internally. It looks like a lot of state agencies have been ‘absorbing costs’ for a long time given the budget crisis we are in now.
It even states in the bill analysis that the 72-24 hour timeline is for the woman to have “adequate time” to reflect on her decision.
“By providing a minimum 24-hour waiting period, the bill provides an expectant mother adequate time to review the sonogram and carefully weigh the impact of her decision”
Don’t get me wrong I’m all for reflecting on an important personal decision, but not when it’s government enforced reflection time.
The bill goes one step further and states that the clinic providing the sonogram is not allowed to receive a payment, or that there even be an agreement on what the price of the abortion will cost, the same time they meet to do the sonogram.
“The bill prohibits a facility providing obstetric sonogram services and any person at the facility, for the duration of a visit made to the facility to fulfill the obstetric sonogram requirements described in this bill, from accepting any form of payment, deposit, or exchange or making any financial agreement for an abortion or abortion-related service other than for payment of an obstetric sonogram service required by the bill's provisions.”
I don’t know what to say to the women who have to work, much less to anyone in a real emergency situation while going through this republican enforced 72-24 hour waiting period business. If she is on an hourly income she surely has the potential to lose a lot of income if not her job, and not everyone can take multiple sick days.
One of the other many little nightmares in the bill is that it defines what a “medical emergency” is. No really, Republican lawmakers not only don’t trust women to make their own decisions but they don’t trust educated doctors either. This is what happens when Republicans start to score political points on the backs of women and doctors in the State of Texas, you have the Texas Legislature deciding what a “medical emergency” is.
Am I the only one laughing? Where are all my small government conservatives railing against the oppressive healthcare laws when I need them?
In a letter to the Texas Senate State Affair’s Committee Chairman, Robert Duncan (R-Lubbock) The Texas Medical Association states this need for a controlled and thoughtful government in a much more informed substantive way:
“TMA’s member physicians fall on both sides of the abortion debate. TMA’s concerns regarding SB 16, however, do not pertain to that highly political issue. However, TMA is concerned about the dangerous precedent SB 16, and related legislation, would set for health care in Texas—a precedent that would lay the foundation for future lawmakers to establish the details of the interaction between physicians and patients, and allow non-physicians to mandate what tests, procedures, or medicines must be provided to patients and in what timeframe. The sanctity of the patient-physician relationship is the foundation of health care in America, and it must be preserved to assure candid communication and allow patients to evaluate their care options. The Legislature’s role should not be to dictate how physicians and patients communicate with one another or what procedures and diagnostic tests must be performed on a given patient.”
Of course they are referring to the Senate version of the bill (“and related legislation”), which is comparatively tamer than this House version. I appreciate that the TMA differentiates right in the beginning of the letter that there is a difference between the personal politics of this bill and the actual policy the bill enacts.
This is exactly why it is wrong to try to legislate these kinds of personal decisions. It creates an unprecedented scenario of what the government can do and you have nothing short of a public policy disaster.
I personally do not see how state republican lawmakers can be for this kind of legislation where there is practically a script in the bill for the doctor to administer to the patient, and in the same breath rail against the chokehold federal government has on our health care system.
This bill is on the House Floor right now. Let your State Representatives know what you think of this issue, and please tune in to watch.
With the announcement that Tom Schieffer is officially out of the Democratic gubernatorial primary, several of his highest-profile Democratic supporters released a statement today. From Representatives Garnet Coleman of Houston, Jim Dunnam of Waco, Jessica Farrar of Houston and Pete Gallego of Alpine (emphasis mine):
"We thank Tom for his steadfast support of Democratic principles, and the sacrifices that he and his wife have made over the last eight months as they traveled across Texas, addressing our states' crisis of leadership.
"We were proud to endorse Tom to serve as the next governor of Texas because he was willing to address issues and concerns that are important to Texas families - public education, jobs, children's health insurance, rising college tuition, energy, protecting the environment and transportation.
"The Democratic Party is still the only one that offers a chance for real change in Texas. Texans still deserve better than one Republican who wants to be governor for life and another who thinks the governor's mansion is a retirement home.
"We look forward to moving our state forward and redoubling our efforts to bring real leadership back to the state of Texas."
These four elected officials are tremendous progressive leaders in the statehouse. Their support of Schieffer carried significant weight, and perhaps prevented many Democrats from initially dismissing the Bush-voting former representative. As the race progresses, it will be interesting to see where their support moves. Previously, Reps. Coleman, Farrar, and Gallego had endorsed Mayor Bill White in his Senatorial bid.
Currently, with White not yet officially in the race and Shami and Gilbert averring that they will stay in the race, these become strong endorsements of the person who may be perceived as the next "establishment candidate," given the clout and respect these four carry amongst the progressive community.
Keep your eyes peeled, folks! This one is far from over just yet.
Compared to the Rick Perry vs. Kay Bailey Hutchison primed up bloodbath, attackfest, the Democratic ticket has been quiet and to a lesser degree, boring. Things have been so slow, bloggers and activists have started draft movements for Senators Leticia Van De Putte and Kirk Watson and former Austin District Attorney Ronnie Earle.
In the past 24 hours, there has been movement in the Governor's race on the Democratic side.
Yesterday, potential Agriculture Commissioner candidate Hank Gilbert announced he was interested in the top job instead. Today, Tom Schieffer show significant signs of life in the same place he started his race 6 months ago. Even Kinky Friedman sent an email out to his campaign list for the first time in months today.
State Representatives Garnet Coleman, Jim Dunnam, Jessica Farrar, and Pete Gallego joined Senfronia Thompson in endorsing Ambassador Schieffer.
"I am gratified by this broad base of Democratic support," Schieffer said. "These leaders have long been in the forefront - often fighting against strong Republican opposition - of efforts to improve education, make quality health care available to more Texans, improve our transportation system and lower insurance rates and utility bills. Together, we can reverse this race to the bottom and improve the quality of life for Texas families."
These endorsements represent an interesting cross section in the Texas House. Besides representing diverse parts of the state, each is a distinct leader in the state legislature.
Coleman chairs the Legislative Study Group, a nonpartisan caucus dedicated to the development of sound public policy for Texas families. Dunnam chairs the House Select Committee on Federal Economic Stabilization Funding, which played a key role in allocating federal stimulus dollars during the recent legislative session. Farrar is the current chair of the House Democratic Caucus and the founder and vice chair of the Women's Health Caucus and founder and secretary of the House Environmental Caucus. Gallego is a former chair of the House Democratic Caucus and former chair of the Mexican-American Legislative Caucus.
When Burnt Orange Report met with Schieffer in July we talked half the time about his Democratic credentials and half the time about policy. The elected officials endorsed him spent the entire time talking about Schieffer's qualifications and drawing a strong comparison between the Ambassador and his Republican counter parts, but the discussion of Democratic credentials were front and center.
"We are proud to endorse Ambassador Tom Schieffer to serve as the next governor of Texas because he is addressing issues and concerns that are important to Texas families - public education, jobs, children's health insurance, rising college tuition, energy, protecting the environment and transportation," Coleman said. "Tom Schieffer is going to be the next governor of Texas because he cares about solving real problems for Texas families."
Jim Dunnam made his statement after Coleman.
"Democrats across Texas can be proud to support Tom Schieffer - a fellow, lifelong Democrat who has never missed voting in a Democratic primary since he was old enough to vote in 1968," said Dunnam, the House Democratic Leader.
"Tom's service to our country during the previous administration doesn't change that," Dunnam added. "Texans deserve better than one Republican who wants to be governor for life and another who thinks the governor's mansion is a retirement home. That is why Democrats across the state will unite behind Tom Schieffer."
During press questions, Rep. Dunnam added, "we aren't a litmus test party. For us to have a candidate who is independently minded is positive."
"Tom Schieffer will be the next governor of Texas because he is a proven leader, not an ideologue," Gallego said. "His successful record as a lawyer, businessman and diplomat proves he will bring people together from across the political spectrum and put the needs of Texas and Texans ahead of narrow partisan and ideological interests."
Of course the question was asked whether Schieffer's Democratic credentials were a concern to any of the endorsers. None of them said it was an issue. Garnet Coleman went as far as to say that he couldn't disagree with any person who voted for a friend and business partner. Senfronia Thompson added her belief many Democrats have voted for a Republican but Schieffer was one of the few to be honest about it. Dunnam followed up with the fact he viewed it as a strength.
Will that stop the question? Only time will tell but now there is a chorus standing behind Schieffer and the backing of the House leaders allowed him to sum up how he will approach this race.
"This is the Democratic Party's first opportunity to win in a long time. The Republican Party has been bankrupt by its leader," Schieffer said. Nobody is entitled to anything. You have to earn it."
Questions may still exist about Schieffer, but with a Democratic primary looming and a campaign being organized, voters and activist may get their answers sooner than later.
Bay Area Houston made a good find yesterday. It seems Jose Medrano is stretching the truth a little bit.
Medrano has been boasting about his fundraising and diverse support. Problem is, his fundraising isn't what it seems, and his support seems to be lacking outside of the Republican power structure.
Looking at his ethics reports finds he raised about $30,000 with $15,000 coming from a loan to himself, $5000 from Bruce Sallee, the President of Texas Petroleum Investment Co, and $5000 from a Farmers Insurance PAC. (Jose is in the insurance industry.) So $25,000 of his $30,000 came from 3 individuals, with more than half from a loan. Leaving $5000 from 12 individuals.
Jessica Farrar on the other hand raised $13,555 from a little under 50 individuals and groups and has $15,673.82 cash on hand (COH). Farrar has been a fantastic legislator and leader. Visit her site and help keep Rep. Farrar in Austin.
I see Marc Campos has picked a side in the upcoming primary fight between State Rep. Jessica Farrar and her opponent.
Commentary's friend Jose Medrano is running for State Representative, District 148 in the Dem Primary. Jessica Farrar is the incumbent. Commentary votes in District 148. Jose used to work for Jessica. The conspiracy folks think Commentary is behind this race. Sorry pals. Jose has his own pros and friends involved. I like Jose, will vote for him, and tell others to support him because I think he would make a great public official.
Well that's nice, but speaking as someone else who votes in District 148, I say we already have a great public official serving us, one with a proven track record of doing the right thing. The single most important issue for any legislator or legislative candidate going into 2009 will be where they stand on House Speaker Tom Craddick and his notion of a divine right of Speakers. I know exactly where Jessica Farrar stands on this, because she's been voting against Craddick since 2005, back before most people realized how important it was to do so. She paid a price for it, too. Maybe her opponent will oppose Craddick, as all Democrats (and most Republicans) should. But why should I wonder about that when I have certainty with Farrar? I'll stick with the person who has demonstrated her courage when it counted.
More than that, Jessica Farrar represents my beliefs as well as any member of the House. I thought she had a great session this past year, standing up time and again for things that needed a champion. She fought for the HPV vaccine, after many of her colleagues suddenly and temporarily became concerned with the Governor overreaching his powers and used that as an excuse to demagogue against women's health. She was a leader in the fight against a genuine and pernicious power grab by the Governor on Homeland Security. She fought for clean air. On issue after issue, she voted the way I would have voted, and was up front about it.
Now, maybe Farrar's primary opponent believes the same things she does, and maybe he doesn't. If he doesn't, then for sure I wouldn't vote for him. But even if he does, why would I want to replace someone who's been doing a good job and voting the way I like for as long as Jessica Farrar has? Why wouldn't I want to keep the person who's been there and done that and has the record to prove it? I can't think of any reason at all. There's plenty of need and room for change in the Texas Legislature, but I want to change the parts that don't work. Jessica Farrar represents what does work. She belongs in the Lege, and I intend to help keep her there.
The choice could not be clearer. If you live in HD148, I hope you'll make a point of voting in the Democratic primary, and then again in the November general, for State Rep. Jessica Farrar. Thanks very much.
Dennis "The Menace" Bonnen is up to no good again. After badgering Jim Marston nearly a month ago, Rep. Bonnen is threatening to kill his own good legislation because he does not want a record vote. Seems odd.
After slithering through the House for 4 hours, HB 13 was dealt a near fatal blow during a marathon day.
Before we go much further, Kuff, Grits, and theTexas Observer have done a fantastic job watching this debate.
As soon as the debate started, Speaker Craddick overruled a point of order offered by Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer. After 4 hours of debate Abel Herrero, found a new points of order and that was that.
Or was it? Craddick decided to suspend all rules to allow the debate to continue. Jessica Farrar, among many others, were shocked.
After several hours of debate, Speaker Craddick sustained a point of order raised by Rep. Herrero (D-Robstown). Chairman Swinford, with the support of Speaker Craddick, then asked the House to vote to suspend all necessary rules to ignore the point of order and continue with the debate. This was despite the fact that the rules of the House exist to protect the public's interest. "I can't remember that having happened at any time in the 13 years I have served in the House. We have rules and procedures for a reason, and it is inappropriate for the Speaker to encourage the House to ignore those rules in the manner that he did," said Rep. Farrar.
However, a very emotional Swinford told the membership this bill had to pass. He said that he and his committee would work as hard as they could to accommodate the members’ concerns. But, he continued, this was bigger than politics. It was about the future of Texas. In tears, he told about his visit to the border and his astonishment at the warfare, the crime and the human trafficking.
Apparently this is such a concern to Rep. Swinford that he would rather kill the bill than listen to concerns over the Governor doing the Department of Public Safeties job.
An amendment Swinford said he could not accept is moving Homeland Security operations out of the Governor’s office. Swinford said he would kill his bill rather than allow that because the arrangements he has made with members of the Texas congressional delegation preclude such a move.
“I told Jessica, I will kill this bill. I’m not going to risk $100 million over somebody’s pettiness,” Swinford said.
As the Guardian points out, this bill isn't for public safety. This is a bill that is for Congressman John Culberson and Governor Rick Perry. This is yet another power grab by the Governor in the shrinking Republican D.C. delegation.
If HB 13 dies, just remember what Swinford told the ACLU...
"Swinford turned on his heels, pointed a finger at Bernhardt and said: "If this bill dies, it will be on your conscience." He then turned and trudged off.
Rebecca Bernhardt is the ACLU's immigration, border and national security policy director, and like others, she had attempted to work with Swinford to work out concerns. To date, none of those concerns have been addressed and the bill is exactly the same as it was before the point of order was sustained.
