Swingers in the Senate
Traditionally, swing votes are found in the middle of the political spectrum, but this session’s Anthony Kennedy in the state Senate may come from the far right. While all eyes have been on Royce West and Chuy Hinojosa, the two Democrats considered most likely to vote with the Republican caucus to bring the budget to the Senate floor this week, Dan Patrick has quietly positioned himself as a third key figure. Patrick told me this afternoon that his “intent” was to vote to suspend the rules so that the budget could be debated. And he said he “supported” the budget in general, despite his “no” vote in Senate finance. What he would not say was whether or not he would vote “aye” when it came to the floor
Patrick said his opposition in committee was meant to signal his displeasure with the decision to use $3 billion from the Rainy Day Fund to balance the budget. Now he says he can live with that concept—noting that, the way the bill is crafted, the money might not get appropriated if the Texas economy rebounds sufficiently to boost tax revenues. What he wants now is 1) an interim committee dedicated to finding long term solutions to school finance, and 2) an amendment to the sales tax speed up in Senator Duncan’s non-tax revenue bill. The tax speedup was one of the biggest sources of new funds—$880 million—found by Duncan and his Fiscal Matters Subcommittee colleagues, but Patrick thinks it is too burdensome for small businesses, and he wants them protected. (Let me pause here and make sure you understand that I understand that we all understand that neither this $880 million, nor virtually any of the other revenue sources found by Duncan’s subcommittee are actually “new funds” in any reality-based sense of the word.) If Patrick gets his way, however, that means the $880 million figure will come down, and some other source of funds will have to be found in the next day or two.
It sounds like Patrick is really trying to get something in exchange for his vote on the budget, though he may just be stalling to see how much animosity there is out in the heartland about the spending levels in the Senate’s budget, viz a viz the much more austere House version. In which case he may vote to suspend—which is, after all, the really crucial vote—and then feel free to cast a symbolic “no” vote on the bill itself, knowing it has still has the votes to pass. On the off chance that this was his plan, I asked Michael Quinn Sullivan, who has been lambasting the Senate’s version of the budget on Twitter for the last several days, how his organization would view such a maneuver. I put it to him just as a hypothetical, not mentioning Patrick. “There’s just something smarmy about that,” Sullivan said. “When it’s done in a disingenuous fashion, so that senators can say to one group, ‘Oh, I was for the budget,’ and then to another, ‘Oh, I was against it.’”
Patrick said he hadn’t thought of that. And, further, he wasn’t sure he believed it. As to whether or not the idea was appealing, he didn’t say. It may be academic anyway, since the House has said from day one that dipping into the Rainy Day Fund is a non-starter, and will never survive the conference committee. House conferees might give a little on public education, using some of the money Appropriations chair Jim Pitts has already dug up from the couch cushions, but they will likely reject many of the Senate’s restorations to Medicaid funding. How can they do that, if Medicaid is an entitlement? Easy–just don’t budget for caseload growth, then throw up your hands and act surprised in 2013 when the bill comes due and the next legislature faces a massive supplemental appropriations bill. (This is not deficit spending, by the way. Deficit spending is unconstitutional in Texas.)
After the gavel today, Dewhurst told reporters that the ball was in the Democrats’ court. Which is technically true. But maybe the sport isn’t basketball–maybe it’s fishing. As one Senate staffer put it to me, that $3 billion in Rainy Day Fund money, is looking more and more like bait dangled by Dewhurst and Ogden to get Democrats to vote to suspend. They get to bite it, but they don’t get to swallow it. (Then you either get eaten or chucked back into the lake with an extra hole in your mouth.) Are they going to take it? Hinojosa, as Vice-chair of Appropriations, has been working closely with Ogden all session and has a lot invested in the bill. He seems a foregone conclusion. And West? “I haven’t decided,” he told me this afternoon. That’s the thing about fishing: You have to be patient.
NATE BLAKESLEE
Kenneth D. Franks says:
We need to use all of the 6 billion in the “Economic Stabilization Fund.” (The Rainy Day Fund)
What was it created for if not for a session like this? It will be replenished. The structural deficit is the problem and it must be solved or there will be more budget problems in the next session. If this bunch won’t work on it they need to be replaced with others that are more concerned about the future of Texas than getting elected over and over again!
Reply »
Russ Reply:
May 1st, 2011 at 12:53 pm
No hay huevos por esos!
Reply »
Pat says:
I’ve never been a Patrick fan, but he’s being awfully shrewd regarding this vote. This is high-stakes rope-a-dope. Dewhurst and the House are the dopes.
Reply »
Fiftycal says:
PLEASE bring on a special session. Dewhurst should have shown some LEADERSHIP and offed the 2/3rds rule to start with, but he was skeered. Punt to special session and we can get Rick to put some priority’s on the list like CAMPUS CARRY if that doesn’t pass in the regular session.
Reply »
Julie says:
If it were up to me, I’d reject both the Senate and House budgets as inadequate and head to a special session in July if necessary.
If the GOP leadership — minus the two-thirds rule — passes a much worse budget in a special session, then they’d have to explain to millions of angry parents and seniors why they turned their back on Texas.
I don’t believe the the GOP leadership’s answers would go over well with the public once the full impact of the cuts hits home.
People like the Tea Party’s Sen. Dan Patrick would have to explain why he did nothing to address the margins tax this year, even though he said it’s created a structural shortfall for public schools that should be addressed.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 10:56 am
Yes, let’s bring in Obama style governing at the state level and raise taxes on the rich. That will jump start our economy.
Always entertaining to hear from Republican Julie on the philosophy of conservative governance. What a joke.
Reply »
Karen Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 11:29 am
Raise taxes on the rich? Yes, but it would only result in the rich and big Corporations paying their *Fair Share* which they have not been doing for about 10 years now.
Businesses hire due to increased demand for their good and services, not because they get a tax cut or credit.
Reply »
Taxpayer Reply:
April 28th, 2011 at 11:14 am
Since we don’t have a state income tax, what all state taxes would you increase in order to only affect the “rich” (how do you define rich) and what would the rates on those taxes have to be in order to eliminate the perceived shortfall?
Anonymous says:
Senate only needs 2/3rds (and it’s 2/3rds of those present) on the conference committee report. Patrick can vote against, the rainy day fund language stays intact, and he only has to vote for it when the conference committee report comes back.
Reply »
1L Reply:
April 26th, 2011 at 9:27 pm
If you’re talking about using the Rainy Day Fund, it’s a constitutional two-thirds, I.e. 21 votes.
If you’re talking about bringing the conference committee report to the floor or accepting the report, it’s a simple majority – the Ds would be powerless unless the 12 stuck together and added four Rs from somewhere.
Reply »
Ben Quick Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 10:04 am
Someday you will be a 2L – a CCR spending rainy day funds still requires the 2/3rds as well
(m) In addition to the appropriation authority provided by Subsections (k) and (l) of this section, the legislature may, by a two-thirds vote of the members present in each house, appropriate amounts from the economic stabilization fund at any time and for any purpose.
Reply »
Karen says:
Perry: “No Faith” In LBB; Leave Rainy Day Fund Alone
excerpts
“”I’ve lost so much faith in the (LBB) and their ability to estimate what’s going on. When they put up a report that said there’s going to be 600,000 jobs lost, that pretty much told me that we got some people that don’t know what they’re doing over there,” Perry said, referring to a controversial jobs report released earlier this session. “Use anybody but the LBB for numbers.”"
“”I’m willing to make some hard decisions just like people are doing every day in this state. That’s what i think gets lost sometimes,” he said “For two years, Texans have been making reductions in their personal lives. They’ve been making hard decisions. They’ve been… distilling wants from needs. And state government is going to have to do the same thing.”"
http://www.texastribune.org/texas-legislature/82nd-legislative-session/perry-no-faith-in-lbb-leave-rainy-day-fund-alone/
As I recall, Perry didn’t put much faith in Strayhorn’s report either but she was spot on. Are any of Perry’s hard decisions going to impact him? Can you think of anything Perry has given up? Salary, health insurance, pension, budget, lavish lifestyle? Isn’t he suppose to lead by example?
Reply »
Taxpayer Reply:
April 28th, 2011 at 11:21 am
Right! Let’s get him out of that rich man’s house he’s living in and put him in a dorm up there at UT. Serves him right, and he can be a peon like the college kids. Get bunk beds, so that when the gov of another state comes for an official visit, he can have the top bunk. That should make a great impression of TX. At least, though, we would show that we wage class warfare. {You socialists are morons.}
Reply »
anita says:
Absolutely pathetic words from Dewhurst today, telling reporters that he was surprised by Senate Finance’s action including funds from Rainy Day Fund.
Who is this guy kidding? Does he think we are idiots?
He needs to either man up or move out. If a Lt. Gov. doesn’t know what his Finance Chairman is doing, he’s not doing his job. If he knows, then lies about it, dropping Ogden in the grease, he’s a no-good SOB to boot. Pathetic.
Chairman Ogden, please accept the apologies of the people of Texas that you have to work under such poor leadership. Carry on.
Reply »
Pat Reply:
April 26th, 2011 at 10:18 pm
Some of the senators–our Finance chair among them–have been around long enough to remember the Bullock and Hobby days, when Rules #1 and 2 were Do Not Embarass The Senate. Dewhurst’s biggest problem is squandering his standing among senators. He should be defending them, not throwing committe chairs under the bus; he should be engineering nonpartisan consensus, not cowtowing to his base; he should be running circles around the House and Governor, not succumbing to their demands.
No, David Dewhurst is not a Lieutenant Governor of Texas. He’s just a guy sitting in a really important chair.
Reply »
Governor Toolshed Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 7:53 am
I agree. Dewhurst is towing too many cows.
Reply »
Pat Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 11:51 am
Touche. Tough to spell correctly on an iphone keyboard.
Kenneth D. Franks Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 8:42 am
Why is Dewhurst taking orders from (T.F.R.)Texans for Fiscal Responsibility? Does he want their endorsement for governor so badly that he is willing to drive Texas off the cliff for it? We have over 6 billion dollars in The Economic Stabilization Fund for a crisis like this. Isn’t this what an Economic Stabilization Fund is designed for. This is complete irresponsibility on Dewhurst’s part in not getting a good bill out of the Texas Senate. The Lieutenant Governor of Texas is one of the most powerful positions in state government. It would be the most powerful if Perry had not been in office so long.
He is worried about a negative score on the Fiscal Responsibility Index from one group? The possible positive impacts of using as much of the Rainy Day Fund as possible would help Texas tremendously and show political courage. Does Dewhurst have any political courage or he will let this group of people do tremendous harm to public education, the elderly, mentally ill, young children, public safety, our local institutions, state parks, and countless other things. We are losing tens of thousands of teachers. Nursing homes will be closing and the Texas Senate doesn’t seriously consider using funds that were expressly put back for situations like this. He needs to consider what is best for Texas as does every other Texas Senator and get us a good bill out of the Texas Senate.
Reply »
hooah! says:
“This is not deficit spending, by the way. Deficit spending is unconstitutional in Texas.”
Oh Nate! You funny, funny, man!
“Who is this guy kidding? Does he think we are idiots?”
Oh Anita! You have SO nailed it!
Reply »
NuecesRising says:
Is that the Hinojosa from the Valley that walked into an airport with a loaded gun? Why would a Democratic Senator from the poorest area in the State vote with the Republicans and betray his constituents? This is a bad budget and an even worse excuse of a leader. He is a fool to think that he will win a re-election if he votes for this budget!
Reply »
Julie says:
Karen,
You asked, Are any of Perry’s hard decisions going to impact him?”
Perry has 21 advisors on his payroll. With all that help, you’d think he’d make some good decision. Not!
Reply »
Briscoe Democrat Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 11:14 am
Julie, Perry’s not the only Texas governor to have decision problems, I mean Ann Richards was too busy arguing with Bob Bullock over silly stuff and Bill Clements couldn’t get along with the then-Democratic legislature during his tenure.
Reply »
Eddie De La Garza says:
Nueces, I’m from Hinojosa’s district and even though I voted for the guy I would agree that he is one corrupt politician. Perhaps the last dying breed of the old mafia style politics in the Rio Grande Valley. I would never vote for him again. What’s Nueces counties take on him voting for the budget?
Reply »
Taxpayer Reply:
April 28th, 2011 at 11:25 am
You would vote for him even though you are in agreement that he is one corrupt politician. However, you will NOT vote for him if he votes for a balanced budget. If everyone in the Valley thinks like you, no wonder the Valley is such a screwed up, impoverished, Mexico-looking place.
Reply »
Ike's lawyer says:
There are narrow circumstances under which the legislature may appropriate funds from the rainy day fund for the next biennium with a 3/5 vote (of the members present) instead of a 2/3 vote. Does anyone know whether that could happen under the comptroller’s most recent revenue estimates for the current and for the next bienniums, and if so, how much could be appropriated from the RD fund on a 3/5 vote under those estimates?
Basically, when the legislature votes on whether to appropriate funds from the RD fund for the next biennium, the amount of her most recent revenue estimate for the next biennium would have to be less than the amount of a revenue estimate she would prepare, at the same time, for the current biennium; and the amount appropriated on a 3/5 vote may not exceed the difference. Here is the constitutional language:
“If an estimate of anticipated revenues for a succeeding biennium prepared by the comptroller pursuant to Article III, Section 49a, of this constitution is less than the revenues that are estimated at the same time by the comptroller to be available for the current biennium, the legislature may, by a three-fifths vote of the members present in each house, appropriate for the succeeding biennium from the economic stabilization fund an amount not to exceed this difference. Following each fiscal year, the actual amount of revenue shall be computed, and if the estimated difference exceeds the actual difference, the comptroller shall transfer the amount necessary from general revenue to the economic stabilization fund so that the actual difference shall not be exceeded. If all or a portion of the difference in revenue from one biennium to the next results, at least in part, from a change in a tax rate or base adopted by the legislature, the computation of revenue difference shall be adjusted to the amount that would have been available had the rate or base not been changed.”
Remember that she can continue to update that Article 3 Section 49a revenue estimate.
Reply »
MT Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 12:38 am
She already changed her estimate, reducing whatever gap there is between current biennium revenue and next biennium ‘s by $300 million.
Reply »
Ike's lawyer Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 1:39 am
Thanks. I imagine those revenue estimates will continue to be fine tuned as per usual over the next weeks (and months if they don’t pass a budget during the regular session).
Do you happen to know what the gross numbers are, more or less? Have her revenue estimates for the next biennium been running smaller than her recent estimates for the current biennium, and if so, is there enough of a spread between the bienniums to make it worthwhile to game out a 3/5 vote scenario?
Reply »
anon-p says:
Cut the budget already. This battle was fought in November, and the tax-raisers side lost.
My theory on the structural budget deficit is that it doesn’t matter anyway.
Hypothesis: Increasing the margins tax (or raising the sales tax or introducing an income tax or increasing fees) will weaken the economy causing increasing unemployment and stagnating wages.
Hypothesis: If the old property tax system were somehow constitutional and still in place, there would have been lower revenues anyway due to a deeper real estate price collapse from the higher property taxes. A few more Texas banks would have probably been taken out, too.
Anybody got a link to a study on the economic impact of increasing taxes to cover the structural deficit?
Reply »
Taxpayer Reply:
April 28th, 2011 at 11:27 am
@anon-p: very astute logic.
Reply »
Spiro Eagleton says:
There was once a swingers party in Houston and a judge and another elected official were there. The judge said to the other elected official, “I’d like to meet your wife.” and the other elected official replied, “You’re on her your Honor!”
Reply »
Julie says:
Amino
The structural deficit doesn’t matter?
It does to Tea Party leader and Senator Dan Patrick, who said it should be addressed because the state can’t afford to have a $15 billion revenue shortfall in two years, something he predicts will be reality if the structural deficit is not fixed.
Reply »
anon-p Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 10:50 am
Is that $15 billion less than the current revenue estimate, which is $27 billion less than the previous revenue estimate?
When tax revenues fall that dramatically, it tells you something about the broader economy.
Exactly where are you proposing the money come from? A crushing income tax? An enormous increase in the margins tax? Sales tax increase?
Even property tax issues can’t get passed locally. Eanes ISD in Austin, allegedly flush with rich property owners, couldn’t get a $150 million bond approved and are projected to ask for a smaller $53 million package. Word has it Austin ISD voters won’t approve any prop tax increase, either. If the people who can afford it won’t approve a tax increase and the people who are most amenable to making somebody else pay won’t approve a tax increase – who’s left?
I don’t know how you can get a clearer message of “cut it already.”
Reply »
Karen Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 11:23 am
“An enormous increase in the margins tax?”
Nope. A margins tax that is fair would be a good place to start. Do you even understand how the margins tax is structured? Many say it is unconstitutional too.
Rick Perry’s Business Income Tax is Bad for Employment
http://blogs.chron.com/thelist/2011/03/rick_perrys_business_income_ta.html
Reply »
anon-p Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 12:08 pm
Karen> A margins tax that is fair would be a good place to start.
How do you address a structural deficit of the size we’re faced with without an enormous increase in the margins tax?
If tinkering with the retail/service tax rates to make the tax fairer results in an enormous increase… it’s a still an enormous increase with all the downstream economic effects, no?
Look, if you’re willing to suffer the economic effects of an enormous tax increase, just say that. Don’t hide behind a fig leaf of “It doesn’t have to be enormous, just -fair-.”
Karen says:
Anybody remember this?
Patrick ‘Patronizes’ Perry Plan
excerpt
“Instead of replacing one tax with another, Patrick drew a line in the sand, suggesting “using the state’s $8.2 billion surplus to cut property taxes, give teachers a pay raise, pay bills left over from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and boost security on the border” (Austin American Statesman, 4/22/06, “Taxpayer summit focuses on limiting government growth”).”
http://plotshot.blogspot.com/2006_04_22_archive.html
Reply »
Karen says:
History has shown that raising taxes during a recession actually increases job creation. Reagan being one example. Bush cut taxes twice and has the worst job creation ever.
http://firedoglake.com/2009/02/01/newsflash-ronald-reagan-raised-taxes-you-idiots/
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 10:59 am
firedoglake??? HOHOHoHoHAhAHAHa!!! What next Code Pink.com???
Reply »
Karen Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 11:32 am
They are alot more intelligent than you are…..
Reply »
Taxpayer Reply:
April 28th, 2011 at 11:43 am
Try hatetherich.com. LMAO!
Reply »
Karen says:
Bush officials try to cherry-pick statistics; it’s still worst job creation record in 60 years—EPI Viewpoints
http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/webfeatures_viewpoints_job_creation_numbers/
Reply »
Dumb Questioner says:
Will someone please tell me how much interest income is currently being garnered from the Rainy Day Fund? Who pays it? Where is the Rainy Day Fund account?
Do they actually have the money ready to hand out?
Reply »
Karen Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 9:40 am
Economic Stabilization Fund History (in millions)
http://www.window.state.tx.us/comptrol/fnotes/fn1102/index.html
Reply »
Karen says:
January 9, 2009, 12:04 PM ET
Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/
Reply »
Karen says:
Reagan’s Forgotten Tax Record
http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/2154/reagans-forgotten-tax-record
Reply »
Taxpayer Reply:
April 28th, 2011 at 11:45 am
Oh, Karen, you are a hoot! The crap you read….
Reply »
Karen says:
Here is the website that is a division of the Comptrollers office that manages the Rainy Day Fund.
Texas Treasury Safekeeping Trust Company
http://www.ttstc.org/investments/index.php
Reply »
truth be told says:
@ Eddie, I concur with you Eddie. Senator Hinojosa is the most corrupt polititian in the chamber. Its sad that he is the poster child for South Texas Democrats.
ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY!
Reply »
NuecesRising says:
Chuy mr. 20 % Hinojosa will lose the next election. There are wealthy Democrats and Republicans that have him in their cross hairs in Corpus Christi! I hear he is despised in Hidalgo co as well.
Reply »
Karen says:
anon-p Reply,
“How do you address a structural deficit of the size we’re faced with without an enormous increase in the margins tax?
If tinkering with the retail/service tax rates to make the tax fairer results in an enormous increase… it’s a still an enormous increase with all the downstream economic effects, no?
Look, if you’re willing to suffer the economic effects of an enormous tax increase, just say that. Don’t hide behind a fig leaf of “It doesn’t have to be enormous, just -fair-.””
So, you solution is to do nothing or pass the bill to extend the exemption at 1M? This will only result in an annual structural budget deficit. It appears you did not even take the time to read the article.
There needs to be a balanced approach to the budget deficit–budget cuts, fix margins tax, closing some tax loopholes/exemptions and use the rainy day funds. Do you really believe that laying people off, closing schools and closing nursing homes will not have a negative impact on the Texas economy?
Reply »
Taxpayer Reply:
April 28th, 2011 at 11:50 am
Increasing edu funding over the years has not produced a better product (functional graduating seniors). Test scores prove it. It stands to reason that decreasing it also won’t affect it. The only way we have improved students’ statistical data is to dumb down the tests which are used to compile statistical data. I would rather you close anything than to raise state taxes. I’ve had enough. You’re going to be surprised at how many of us there are who feel this way.
Reply »
anon-p Reply:
April 28th, 2011 at 1:07 pm
Karen> There needs to be a balanced approach to the budget deficit–budget cuts, fix margins tax, closing some tax loopholes/exemptions and use the rainy day funds.
This is fair. I can understand your desire to do all three and sympathize with it, to some extent: 1. Raise taxes, 2. Tap the fund, 3. Cut spending
I wish some on your side would agree and stop bleating about catastrophe if -any- cuts are made. The gulf is too wide to not make cuts, and the electorate has essentially vetoed the alternative, which is massive tax increases.
I understand many feel we were sold a bill of goods with the prop tax / margins tax swap. But the unstated predicate to the swap being revenue neutral was, “as long as the economy doesn’t tank.”
Well… Here we are.
Karen> Do you really believe that laying people off, closing schools and closing nursing homes will not have a negative impact on the Texas economy?
It may, and it probably will. The extent of the damage is an open question, however.
But, it’s unavoidable in either the case of deep cuts or enormous tax increases. Enormous tax increases has its own set of cruel effects.
Reply »
Julie says:
Karen,
I’m with you on your thinking, as you explained it in the last paragraph of your comment.
Lt. Gov. Dewhurst was opposed to using rainy day funds for the upcoming budget. But he changed his mind today. He now supports use of up to $3 billion in rainy day funds for the next budget, if additional revenue does not become available in the next two fiscal years.
Reply »
angry says:
Texans REALLY need to hold the Texas Legislature and Governor Perry fully accountable for our economic woes. Denial of harsh realities has gotten them and their constituents nowhere in the long run.
Reply »
Taxpayer Reply:
April 28th, 2011 at 11:52 am
It really is ironic that the new cliche is correct. “We don’t have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem.”
Reply »