Perry - who was given several opportunities - declined to say he would veto it if the bill comes to him.
"I'm making it pretty clear I don't want people to spend the Rainy Day Fund," he said.
Asked if that should be taken as a "no," Perry replied: "No, I take it as what I said. I have made it a fairly good practice of not saying I'm not going to sign a piece of legislation or veto a piece of legislation until it comes to my desk in its final form. I don't think it's fair to the process this far out."
Perry's cop-out is terribly weak and borders on a complete lie. He announces legislation he will sign (sonograms, eminent domain, photo ID) or veto (CHIP expansion) all the time.
Governor Perry is engaging in a long-form negotiation, and he's not doing that well. While Governor Perry travels the country, House and Senate lawmakers are in hearings every day learning about the devastating consequences the budgets will have on mothers and fathers across the state. He refuses to meet disabled Texans who are outside of his office, or really come face-to-face with any of the consequences of his actions. But Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate are coming face-to-face with what Perry's outlandish request would mean for Texas.
The tipping point is coming, if we're not already there, and and Governor Rick Perry is going to lose what little negotiating strength he has left. He will react, as he has in the past, with bravado and bold actions that serve himself instead of the state, and he will also take credit for all the work that others did for all of session. It's an act we've all seen before.
But the most interesting part was when he was asked about whether or not Perry will cave in on using the Rainy Day Fund. Here's what he said, when asked in Gov. Perry is still on the other side of that issue (spending the RDF:
Well he is and he isn't. I've talked to him privately. I've also listened to his public statements and they're more nuanced then they're being portrayed. And at the end of the day the Governor's position I believe, in fact I know is..(Ogden chuckles)..Until I'm convinced you guys have scrubbed this budget as much as possible and as much as the voters want to, don't start spending the Rainy Day Fund. But that's different then were never going to touch it.
Five major Texas conservative groups -- Texans for Fiscal Responsibility, the Texas Conservative Coalition, Americans for Prosperity-Texas, the Free Market Foundation and the Texas Public Policy Foundation -- have all advocated for use of the Rainy Day Fund dollars in the 2012-2013 budget. In fact, all the groups predicted there would be a budget shortfall the Legislature had to confront this session, and that the money should be used to "prevent or eliminate a temporary cash deficiency in general revenue."
If that runs against everything that you've heard in the news, it's because the groups advocated for the use of the Rainy Day Fund in a letter dated March 31, 2009, during the last session. From a copy of the letter, which is still posted on the Texas Conservative Coalition website:
The balance in the Economic Stabilization Fund should continue to accumulate and be held in reserve to address future potential shortfallas as a consequence of the current economic downturn. Comptroller Susan Combs has warned that the impact of the financial crisis will be felt not in the 2010-2011 state budget, but two years from now as the 82nd Texas Legislature writes the 2012-13 budget. Retaining the entire balance in the Economic Stabilization Fund is important so that the state does not have to cut essential programs or raise taxes in response to an anticipated budget shortfall in 2011.
The fact that all groups oppose use of the Rainy Day Fund now -- and given the fact that the state's economic situation panned exactly as they predicted -- goes to show how much politics, and not public policy, actually goes into their decision making process.
Today, Governor Rick Perry will meet with Texas Republicans to, among other things, urge them to not use the Rainy Day Fund for the current budget process. As Peggy Fikac wrote in the Houston Chronicle:
Perry will be talking about the same topic today when he meets with the House Republican Caucus. Perry is not only opposed to new taxes, he says he's against tapping into the rainy day fund savings account.
The latter position puts him at odds with some other top GOP leaders and a number of GOP lawmakers. A GOP House leader told my colleague, Gary Scharrer, that nearly all Republicans are ready to pull money from the rainy day fund, and that Perry wants to meet with them to change their minds.
Some think Perry's talk against using the fund is his opening gambit in budget negotiations. If he started out saying it was OK to use the fund, those who want to avoid painful cuts could concentrate on pushing for new revenue, and maybe even taxes. At least one observer didn't want to comment, saying, "No one wants to back him into a corner" with the risk of hardening Perry's pronouncements into a veto threat.
Republicans hold 101 of the 150 seats in the Texas House of Representatives, giving them a supermajority that allows them to pass any legislation that doesn't, in some way, divide their caucus. All they have to do, ostensibly, is follow the rules. Texas House Republicans were caught earlier this week almost setting precedent that would have allowed the end of all public public testimony on legislation if it weren't for the swift actions of House Democrats to protect the institution of the House. The precedent they almost set was so far-reaching, in fact, that they made motions to go back and expunge the precedent and all conversations from the precedent ever being set from the House Journals.
As you can see, the video was uploaded on March 2, the day the Texas House first brought up the bill but well before it ever passed. In fact, as of today (Saturday, March 5) the bill has only passed on Second Reading, and still has not yet passed off the floor of the Texas House. That vote is expected on Monday. Yet, this is what Chairman Christian says around the 1:00 minute mark of the video:
"Today we are excited to have on our program Representative Sid Miller -- Chairman Sid Miller -- who has just passed a historic piece of legislation through the Texas House that is one of the Governor's emergency items. It's the 'sonogram bill' as it's known. And today, we're going to have Representative Sid Miller explain the details to us. Many of us in the pro-life organizations are very happy that Sid had the strength and the courage to pass..."
Actually voting is just a trivial matter, I guess, which was made evident as House Republicans almost unilaterally voted down every amendment by House Democrats to improve the legislation, including amendments that would have exempted victims of rape or sexual assault, an amendment to protect the mother and the fetus as they travel through the parking lot to a physician's office, and even an amendment that would have provided a medical exemption from the sonogram for mothers and fathers that choose to terminate a pregnancy because they know the child would die upon delivery. Perhaps if House Republicans had paid attention to what they were voting on, and not just been on auto-pilot boasting about passage before any votes were cast, some better public policy would have been put into the legislation.
Provided House Bill 15 passes the Texas House, the legislation would go to the Senate for consideration. The Senate passed a different version of the same issue on a Senate bill, so there's no bill in conference committee right now.** Eventually -- perhaps as part of the Monday meeting with Governor Perry the House Republican caucus is having -- it would be cleared up and we would know which bill the Governor will sign.
Unless Governor Perry just signs it in the caucus meeting, since actually voting on legislation doesn't seem to be necessary for passage anymore.
**UPDATE NOTE - The first two sentences of this paragraph were updated from the original published version of this post which stated, incorrectly, that the bill that came out of the House would then go to conference committee in the Senate. Since each chamber only voted on their own versions of the sonogram bill, one chamber still has to take up and consider one of the other's version before it could be sent to conference committee or the Governor's desk.
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.
Right out of the gate, House Republicans are using their super majority to completely rewrite thirty years of precedent in the Texas House and could, depending on an official legal ruling that everyone at the Texas Capitol has been waiting on for almost two hours, create an opportunity for the elimination of all public testimony on legislation.
Here's what's going on:
The House of Representatives is taking up their first bill of the session right now, House Bill 15. That particular piece of legislation requires women to receive a sonogram before having an abortion. While discussing the ridiculous nature of the bill, a point of order was called on the legislation. For those not familiar with the official procedures of the Texas House, a point of order is called if the legally required procedures for the passage of legislation are not followed correctly. A point of order has the effect of removing the bill from the Calendar.
The point of order was raised on House Bill 15 because the Committee Chair took testimony on the issue, but not on the actual bill. Those who testified on the bill testified on the topic, or "matter" of the bill, and once their testimony was over, the bills were laid out. This goes against years of House precedent, where a bill is laid out and then testimony is taken on the specific legislation. Additionally, the initial ruling on the Chair, which is currently being revisited, suggested that House Chairs would no longer have to follow the five-day posting requirement in order to hear testimony on a "matter" the Committee has jurisdiction over.
By rewriting the rules, House Republicans are side-stepping the established and essential witness process for bills. Removing the public testimony on all legislation would be a grave and dangerous precedent for House Republicans to establish, and would seriously undermine the open government process Democrats have fought for years to protect.
In summary, we could witness a dramatic return to the days of Speaker Craddick unless the ruling from the House Chair comes down differently, only instead of one Speaker Craddick, every Committee Chair would become a Craddick with the newly created power to refuse any and all public testimony on legislation.
Texas Republicans promised to address the $27 billion budget shortfall through budget cuts only, and without the use of the so-called Rainy Day Fund or without raising new revenue. Republican lawmakers have talking about spreading the pain and sharing the burden, but the truth is that the burden of the budget cuts (which were created by the way due to the policies of Texas Republicans over the last decade) is not being shared equally among all Texans. In fact Republicans are placing a significant burden on future Texans. Through deep cuts in education Republicans are placing the burden of their failed economic policies on the backs of future generations.
The Texas Independent reports that the House budget proposal would reduced public education funding by $3.1 billion (9.1%). This would also include a budget cut to the Foundation School Program which would be $9.8 billion below scheduled formula requirements after accounting for student population growth, and cutting other programs by two-thirds, including teacher incentive pay and pre-K grants, in addition to increasing the maximum student-teacher ratio in elementary schools. The Senate budget proposal would provide more funding for public education; $500 million more to the Permanent School Fund (leaving a shortfall of $9.3 billion), plus $400 million to help salvage funding for programs in areas including pre-K, high school completion and college readiness.
There are three ways to become a citizen of the United States. You can be a naturalized American citizen; where a foreign born individual meets several requirements and then is granted citizenship. If you are born outside of the United States but at least one of your parents is a United States citizen then you can become a citizen through Jus Sanguinis (Right of Blood). The most common way to become a United States citizen is through Jus Soli (Right of Birthplace), which was codified by the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, there is now a movement to repeal the 14th Amendment, and remove the right of individuals born within the United States borders to automatically become citizens.
During times of economic recession, it is often "the other" that is blamed for the hardships of the many. During the Great Recession "the other" has taken many different forms, but one of the most common is undocumented immigrants. A common refrain is that undocumented immigrants "take American jobs," even though economic studies have shown that undocumented immigrants actually have a positive impact on the native workforce. Not to mention that American corporations have done far more damage to the American worker through outsourcing than undocumented workers ever could have done. The economic situation has lead to an atmosphere of hate, as the Southern Poverty Law Center has documented the rising tide of hate towards Latinos and the increasing activity of nativists lobbies and organizations.
Despite their reverence of the United States Constitution, which often times border on worship, prominent Republican leaders have called for the repeal of the 14th Amendment. Politico reported that Republican Senators Rand Paul of Kentucky and David Vitter of Louisiana proposed an amendment to the Constitution that would put new limits on citizenship guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. The proposal would remove Jus Soli from anyone who is born in the United States whose parents are not citizens, legal permanent resident or active duty military members. In a statement Vitter said that the number of undocumented immigrants entering the country is escalating because of "children of illegal aliens born in the U.S. are granted automatic citizenship," and that "closing this loophole will not prevent them from becoming citizens, but will ensure that they have to go through the same process as anyone else who wants to become an American citizen."
Since the Great Recession began after the financial crisis in 2008, the narrative has been that Texas has weathered the storm better than the rest of the states. However, since Texas budgets biannually, the last budget was passed only a few months after the recession began in 2009. The effects of the recession are now being felt in full affect in the budget that will be passed in 2011. Having a budget crisis in a pro-business, low-regulation, low-spending, no-union, Republican-dominated state goes against the narrative. As Yglesias notes, "keeping taxes low by simply not having taxes be high enough to pay the bills is in the best Texas conservative tradition of George W Bush but it doesn't work for state government during a recession."
Texas has maintained an unemployment rate below the national average throughout the recession. According the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Texas currently has an unemployment rate of 8.2% compared to the national average of 9.4%. But, Krugman notes that on his blog that when you compare the unemployment rate in Texas and New York they are statistically similar. However, Avent notes that the two states are different because of the dramatic difference in their respective labor markets, and that a large share of the rise in the unemployment rate in Texas is due to migration. Although, Krugman responds that the unemployment comparison is relevant because "in terms of personal hardship, in terms of people looking for jobs but not finding them, Texas has done essentially no better than New York." So far it has just been a policy debate among economic policy wonk bloggers.
Then Krugman writes about "The Texas Omen" in his bi-weekly New York Times column, during which he expands on the subject of Texas and points out that it is the state where conservative economic policy has most completely been put into practice. Then Williamson takes issue with Krugman assessment of Texas, and says in his National Review post that "no, Paul Krugman, Texas is not broke." Williamson continues, "keep your pants on, professor. Texas is not going to have a budget shortfall." So, what's the deal?
The line is an adaption of a famous 1957 photo by Larry Obsitnik of the Arkansas Gazette. It's taken looking back at the Broadway Bridge in Little Rock as paratroopers from the 101st Airborne Division rolled into the city. They were entering Little Rock on the eve of Little Rock Central High School's historic integration. A simple statement on a billboard at a turning point in Arkansas' history but it said so much at that time. I remembered that photo today as I sat in a press conference hosted by Rep. Mike Villarreal as he discussed the impact an epic budget shortfall will have on Texas education. In so many words, Villarreal asked that same question of Texans going into the upcoming biennium.
Everything is bigger in Texas, including shortfalls. However, the rhetoric coming from Governor Rick Perry and the rest of the Texas Republicans over the last year has also been bigger, bigger enough to convince the rest of the country that Texas has not been as affected by the Great Recession as much as the rest of the country. However, it seems as those the rest of the country is starting to take notice that things are not as they appear to be in the conservative utopia called Texas.
As Business Insider reports, there's one state, which is fairly high up on the list of troubled states that nobody is talking about, and there's a reason for it:
The state is Texas.
This month the state's part-time legislature goes back into session, and the state is starting at potentially a $25 billion deficit on a two-year budget of around $95 billion. That's enormous. And there's not much fat to cut. The whole budget is basically education and healthcare spending. Cutting everything else wouldn't do the trick. And though raising this kind of money would be easy on an economy of $1.2 trillion, the new GOP mega-majority in Congress is firmly against raising any revenue.
