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.
State Sen. Steve Ogden, a straight-shooting Bryan Republican who is one of the Upper Chamber's most powerful members as its chief budget-writer, just announced that he will not run for re-election next year.
The decision had been widely rumored for months.
His departure promises an open seat that could attract several candidates, and could be a target for Democrats who would like to gain more Senate seats, although the district is considered GOP territory. State Rep. Dan Gattis, R-Georgetown, has been mentioned repeatedly as a likely candidate.
In a brief statement, Ogden said he will give up the Senate seat he has held since 1997 without detailing his future plans.
District 5 covers all or parts of the following state house districts: 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 20, 52, 57.
The Democratic reps are: Chuck Hopson, Jim McReynolds, Diana Maldonado, and Jim Dunnam.
The Republican reps are: Byron Cook, Lois Kolkhorst, Fred Brown, Tim Kleinschmidt, and Dan Gattis.
Some of the bigger cities include: College Station, Bryan, Round Rock, Huntsville, Georgetown, and Cedar Park.
The 2006 election saw Ogden coast to a 61-35-4 win.
Key Point: The Senate already "supported" CHIP legislation 29-2, on the amendment to Rep. Pierson's bill. It only takes 4/5 of the Senate to pull Rep. Coleman's bill out of Senator Ogden's committee and bring it to the House floor. 29/31 > 4/5. It's entirely up to Senate Republicans -- are they willing to put children's health care first, or are they going to stand by Rick Perry and kill expansion of CHIP?
Yesterday, Texas Governor Rick Perry spoke out against CHIP expansion legislation -- possibly even threatening a veto -- at the same time that Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst and Senate Republicans attempted to dishonestly derail any hopes of CHIP expansion legislation passing this session.
"No. I would probably not be in favor of that expansion even if it came to my desk. I think the members know that," Perry said. "That is not what I consider to be a piece of legislation that has the vast support of the people of the state of Texas."
The "vast support of the people of Texas" don't support the plan? CHIP has been one of the winningest issues for Texas Democrats over the past six years. Moreover, a poll last November by a Republican research firm, Hill Research Consultants, had the following information:
Helping "children access quality healthcare" is the top priority of 18% of registered voters in TX, 2nd highest of any issue.
In a re-elect question on Republican elected officials, 54% of registered voters said they would "give Democrats a chance."
Children's healthcare is the top priority of 85% of those regustered voters who would "give Democrats a chance."
Moreover, the House and Senate have already passed versions of the legislation. The Senate passed legislation by Senator Averitt, while the House passed legislation by State Rep. Garnet Coleman. The Senate, in an attempt to be cute, attached Sen. Averitt's version of the legislation to a House bill that had was not about CHIP -- therefore, it would have been struck down on a point of order.
The House, not surprisingly, said, "um, no, we can't do that" -- and Rick Casey, in his column in today's Houston Chronicle titled, "CHIP charade also failed test of character" calls out the Senate Republicans for their nonsense:
But Dewhurst and Sen. Steve Ogden, R-Bryan, the powerful Finance chairman who declined to call a committee meeting to report out Coleman’s bill, didn’t need to take a chance, and they knew it. Both are veterans familiar with the House rules.
What’s more, when 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. [...]
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.
The Senate already "supported" putting the CHIP legislation on the dead legislation 29-2. It only takes 4/5 of the Senate to pull Rep. Coleman's bill out of Senator Ogden's committee and bring it to the House floor. 29/31 > 4/5.
The Senate Republicans have already shown that they want the CHIP legislation. There is already a 4/5 majority that have voted for it. There's absolutely no reason, whatsoever, for Senate Republicans not to pull Rep. Coleman's bill out of committee, amend Sen. Averitt's bill to it, and send it back to the House.
If there is no CHIP expansion bill, Governor Perry's veto threat and the complete "charade [of] callous stupiditiy" exercised by Senate Republicans are squarely to blame. Dewhurst was the one that wanted to kill CHIP in 2007; he's trying to do it again.
Will the Senate Republicans block the CHIP expansion bill? That may be the biggest issue of today. Stay tuned.
Lawmakers here intend to replace existing funds with federal stimulus money.
I literally spat out my coffee this morning when I saw an article on front page of the Houston Chronicle's City and State section Stimulus, or better yet, status quo. Political reporter Lisa Falkenberg reveals one of the most appalling and unimaginable Republican shenanigans regarding federal stimulus money.
It seems that our esteemed lawmakers cleaned out the public schools' piggy bank so it could replace it with federal stimulus money
Since the 1960's lawmakers have been protected by the law from being cited, detained, or in some cases arrested during a legislative session. According to a KXAN story by Austin's Jenny Hoff, this apparently includes ticketing people who are driving with a lawmaker in the car.
A DPS sergeant is being verbally reprimanded and may have to be "counseled" after he ticketed a driver for speeding - because the passenger was a state senator.
The facts, according to the KXAN story seem clear and basic on their face.
It was a routine traffic stop around 4 p.m. on Friday, March 27th. A DPS sergeant saw a car speeding 12 miles over the limit, issued the woman a ticket and headed back to work.
The only problem was the woman he cited was the wife of Sen. Steve Ogden, R-Bryan, and the passenger in her car was the senator himself.
Ogden didn't ask for a reprieve for his wife, and the sergeant apparently went back to his superiors and told them about the citation him.
But even though there was no complaint, the sergeant, a 13-year veteran of the agency, was verbally reprimanded and schooled on the law by his superiors, according to sources within the DPS.
The Senator says he didn't complain. He says he didn't mention the law and he even says he believes lawmakers should receive tickets for speeding.
The question then is, how did the DPS know to reprimand the officer for that ticket if Ogden never tipped them off?
Ogden has a history of hostility with the Department of Public Safety.
Though sources said he did not complain about the incident, Sen. Ogden might be one of the last lawmakers troopers would want to agitate. In 2007, Ogden passed a law that requires each law enforcement agency adopt physical fitness standards that a law enforcement officer must meet to continue employment with the agency. According to DPS agency insiders, this came after Ogden noticed one of the troopers was out of shape.
State Senator Ogden isn't alone in his feelings towards law enforcement. Republican Governor Rick Perry has been a similar situation before, but his feeling were well known at the scene.
This is not the first case a trooper has received verbal reprimand for citing a lawmaker and/or failing to recognize the politician during the traffic stop. In 2000, Perry was caught on videotape taken by a trooper's mounted camera after his driver was stopped for speeding. The video camera captured an agitated Perry urging the officer to "let us get on down the road."
According to her colleagues, the trooper who stopped Perry was later berated by her superiors for not recognizing the lawmaker.
There have been no comments from the DPS officials. However, KXAN seems to be suggesting in there article that Perry has a track record of being openly hostile with DPS. Is it possible Ogden is telling the truth that he didn't contact DPS to reprimand the officer, but instead had the Governor call on his behalf?
There are only a handful of people that know what all went happen. What is clear is Senator Ogden and his wife were going 12 miles per hour over the speed limit, and the officer who was tasked to protect us was reprimanded. Perhaps the 1965 law needs to be reworked, or people who commit crimes, should deal with the consequences.
Republican Steve Ogden either made a huge mistake or is intentionally trying to torpedo the budget.
As the Senate finance committee went through the normal business of "discussing" riders to the budget, Ogden added one that would prevent state money from being used to pay for embryonic stem-cell or having any state money affiliated with stem-cell research.
Texans for the Advancement of Medical Research (TAMR) quickly responded to Ogden's ill conceived rider.
"The effect of that rider would be to forbid responsible medical research using embryonic stem cells derived from fertilized eggs destined to be discarded by IVF clinics. The rider would also ban embryonic stem cell research allowed by Pres Bush's executive order at public universities and other institutions in Texas," said TAMR President Joe Brown.
"This measure would undermine the hope embryonic stem cell research gives to so many families struggling with serious medical conditions," Brown said. "It would also discourage researchers from locating to Texas and essentially force others already conducting embryonic stem cell research here either to stop or to leave the state."
Brown noted that the ban could even undermine the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute. Texas voters in November 2007 authorized the institute to issue $3 billion in general obligation bonds over ten years for cancer research and prevention.
"By placing a prohibition on what research can be conducted in state facilities or using state monies, Texas is placing the great potential of the newly formed Cancer Institute in jeopardy," Brown said. "Research on cancer and other serious diseases depends largely on the biological
TAMR and President Barack Obama both outlined why this research is essential. Ogden's rider on the state budget bill by the Senate Finance Committee on Monday would undermine critical medical research into treatments for serious diseases such as cancer, Parkinson's disease and diabetes.
President Obama made a similar statement in last night's news conference.
What we have said is that for embryos that are typically about to be discarded, for us to be able to use those in order to find cures for Parkinson's or for Alzheimer's or, you know, all sorts of other debilitating diseases -- juvenile diabetes -- that it is the right thing to do. And that's not just my opinion; that is the opinion of a number of people who are also against abortion.
The Senate Finance Committee voted 6-5 to add the rider to the budget and the votes are still unclear. In addition, the Senate Finance Committee has not yet voted on the full budget bill.
As Senator Kirk Watson explains the situation.
Given the lack of discussion, it's unclear whether the committee intended to institute such a sweeping ban. But the wording of this action plainly forbids state money from being used "in conjunction with or to support" this vital pursuit. That means it would effectively bar some of Texas' top researchers from the state's universities and laboratories, where most of this work in the state is currently taking place.
A study by Dr. Bernard Weinstein and Dr. Terry Clower, both of the University of North Texas, found that embryonic stem cell research "is a critical component of the life sciences and the study of diseases" in the state, which in turn are essential industries for the Texas economy. Failing to keep pace with the world in this area, the study found, could cost Texas more than 100,000 jobs alone by 2014.
Steve Ogden may have lost support of Senate Democrats for SB 1 with his surprise rider prohibiting state funds to be used in stem cell research, or as the rider states: "in conjunction with or to support research that involves the destruction of a human embryo."
The rider was added Monday with little debate, on a 6-5 vote, with several members absent from the committee.
Judith Zaffirini tells us that "there are some members so upset there has been discussion of blocking the appropriations bill if this rider remains in it."
Zaffirini believes that such an important statement of public policy deserves a full hearing so the Legislature could hear from scientists whose research would be impacted.
While of course Paul Burka disagrees, it is hard to see Democrats and moderate Republicans looking to derail the recently approved Cancer Research Institute or destroy the life science research being done in Texas. More importantly, how can any elected official look a person and the face and say their family with a serious diseases such as cancer, Parkinson's disease or diabetes is unimportant at the state legislature.
Kirk Watson stated his intentional simply.
This provision must be removed from the budget, and there will be opportunities to do so in coming months. I will work with my colleagues to reverse this decision so we can debate this issue in the Senate, where it belongs.
Democrats and Republicans should work together in the Senate Finance Committee to remove this ill thought out rider or they should vote against the budget and work out their differences in a special session. When people's lives are at stake, there is no reason to rush. This is a rider that requires patients and diplomacy, but it also requires resolve and fortitude. Ogden's rider may not have intended to create such sweeping changes, and in a session were the only thing either chamber must pass is a budget, why put it at risk for ideological reasons?
After insisting for months that the Voter ID bill carried a fiscal note of zero, it appears Senate Republicans are changing their tune.
Chairman Steve Ogden offered up a $2 million rider that was contingent on the passage of the bill.
Ogden was admitting what Republicans have been hiding for a long, long time. If Voter ID does manage to pass, the State will be obligated to spend millions of dollars to educate people about the changes. Even then, of course, thousands of people will fall through the cracks and be denied their right to vote.
On Monday, Ogden ended the Republicans' ongoing charade that Voter ID would cost the state nothing. But then, as Sen. John Whitmire (D-Houston) pointed out, he tried to have it both ways.
If Vote ID passes, “prudence would dictate that we provide the Secretary of State with additional funds to make sure everyone in the state of Texas knows the new rules (requiring identification at the polls),” Ogden reasoned.
“Will the fiscal note for the bill still be zero?” asked John Whitmire. Royce West suggested that the rider indicated the true cost of Voter ID was $2 million.
Ogden said he believed the fiscal note, but “I just think they (the Secretary of State’s office) need more (money).”
“That doesn’t sound like the chairman I know,” West said.
“Nobody’s perfect,” Ogden quipped.
The proposal prompted a testy exchange when Voter ID advocate Tommy Williams observed that “the very people who are complaining (about costs of the bill) are opposing what appears to be very generous funding.”
“What’s absurd is that someone is trying to have it both ways,” Whitmire shot back.
Eventually Senate Republicans will have to come clean and level with Texans about the true costs of Voter ID.
They claim that a significant amount of legal voters will not be barred from voting. They claim (most of the time, at least) that the Secretary of State's office will not need millions of dollars in funding to educate voters about the dramatic changes.
Our job, as Democrats, is to make sure the truth comes out. It is good to see Sen. Whitmire and Sen. West working to make sure that happens.
