Day 1: Two speeches
After the members of the House took the oath of office this afternoon, they heard from two of the state’s leaders. One was Joe Straus, who had just won a third term as speaker, this time by acclamation. The other was Rick Perry, who is presumed to be running for president in 2016.
If you didn’t know them, you would have thought Straus was the one running for higher office, not Perry. The governor spent a little bit of time reminiscing about the days when he was in the House and recycling issues he has championed in the past: a stricter constitutional limit on spending that did not get much traction when he first pushed it; requiring drug testing for people seeking welfare and unemployment benefits (which would ultimately punish the children of the state’s most vulnerable citizens, if a parent is denied benefits); a bill to prevent abortions in the first twenty weeks based on the unproven argument that a fetus can experience pain at that stage of development; and a vague proposal for “tax relief” in a state whose residents already enjoy the lowest tax burden in the country. I had the sense that he was mailing his remarks in.
Straus challenged members to address the biggest issues facing the state, starting with profound demographic change. “Our rapid growth requires a steadfast commitment to the core responsibilities of government,” he said, “such as a quality education, a reliable water supply, a healthy transportation system, and an honest state budget.” He received a loud ovation for his attack on standardized testing: “Teachers and parents worry that we have sacrificed classroom inspiration for rote memorization. The goal of every teacher is to develop in students a lifelong love of learning, and we need to get back to that goal in the classroom. To parents and educators concerned about excessive testing — the Texas House has heard you.”
This stance will, in due course, bring Straus into conflict with Perry, who, along with various business groups, has been a strong advocate of the state’s accountability system based on standardized tests. If last session is any guide, Perry will ensure that his agenda receives action by labeling his proposals as “emergencies,” thereby bumping them up to the top of a special calendar. Yet one issue that Perry did not raise in his remarks to the House was school choice, the pet issue that has been embraced by Senator Dan Patrick and Lieutenant Governor Dewhurst. Whether the omission was deliberate or by chance remains to be seen, but it was probably wise of Perry to avoid it. The House has a long history of being a burial ground for school vouchers, with members as diverse as Charlie Geren and David Simpson among the opposition.
As I watched Straus speak, I felt as if he was going from presiding over the chamber to leading it. His emergence as a leader raises the stakes for the session. For the first time in awhile, one of the state’s leaders has stepped forward to grab the state’s biggest issues by the throat.
This first day definitely hinted at conflicts to come over the next 139. The session is setting up as a battle between those who want to address the state’s biggest issues and those who want to rachet down spending even after the comptroller’s revenue estimate validated predictions that the state would have a large surplus. In other words: Straus v. Perry.
Tagged: 2013, Joe Straus, rick perry
Tarry House says:
Not sure Straus intends to pick a fight with Perry, but Straus has told some friends he is empowered to lead and direct now, not just being a mediator any longer. I approve.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
January 9th, 2013 at 8:03 am
I don’t think Straus is going to pick a fight with Perry. I think he is going to push his agenda, whether the governor likes it or not.
Reply »
Johnny Comment Reply:
January 9th, 2013 at 8:13 am
That would be a fresh and welcome thing. Perry needs to move on.
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
January 9th, 2013 at 11:37 am
I watched both speeches online last night and this tells me that Perry is NOT running for a 4th term in 2014 because his approval ratings are horrible and folks are sick of seeing his A&M ego face.
Reminds me of how the boosters at Florida State were finally fed up with Bobby Bowden as the football team’s head coach for 33 years (1976-2009), 34 seasons total with 2 national championships.
Anonymous says:
Perry’s weaker than in 2011, Dewhurst is weaker than in 2011 and Straus gets that if he doesn’t step forward, others in the Leg with either the loudest voices or the best sense of where the TV cameras are (hello, Sen. Patrick) will end up driving the agenda. The Speaker either sets the tone now or he ends up looking as shaky as the governor and the lite gov after their 2012 debacles.
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
January 9th, 2013 at 11:39 am
Anon, do not be surprised if Perry announces his retirement in his June speech after the Legislature adjourns.
Dewhurst is also FINISHED politically, but his ego won’t let him know it because he’s hell bent on seeking re-election as Lieutenant Governor.
Once Perry announces he will not seek re-election, look for Perry’s supporters to rally behind Abbott.
Reply »
Just Another Joe Reply:
January 9th, 2013 at 6:12 pm
I think the Perry supporters have already rallied behind Abbott. Keep an eye on his January 15 report, I hear it will certainly feed to gossip.
Reply »
Bill says:
Perry spoke like a short-timer: a man on the downhill side of his career. His speech was meandering and lacked focus.
Reply »
TexCandi Reply:
January 9th, 2013 at 4:53 pm
Sounds just like his political 2012 campaign run – meandering and lacked focus.
Reply »
Bill says:
If Straus wants to be a leader, he will have to make committee assignments in a timely manner. Last session, Straus fiddled while Austin burned, and good legislation ended up being killed by the calendar.
It will be interesting to see if Simpson ends up with backwater assignments on Agriculture and Livestock Committee and Human Services Committee with Hughes.
Reply »
Tellinitlikeitis Reply:
January 9th, 2013 at 6:44 am
One could argue that a lot of really bad bills also got killed by the calendar.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
January 9th, 2013 at 8:04 am
Re Bill
What good legislation ended up being killed by the calendar? There was no good legislation last session. It was awful.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
January 9th, 2013 at 8:14 am
Keffer’s fracking bill was good legislation.
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
January 9th, 2013 at 11:40 am
Burka, can we expect Perry to announce by June that he will NOT seek reelection in 2014 ?
He did sound a bit angry and bitter, and most folks were probably yawning while he was talking.
Get Real says:
Perry’s speech sounded like he was on a half dose of his presidential debate painkillers.
Straus sounds like a leader (and future Gov or US Senate candidate).
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Paul, I know drama sells and is good for reporters but to trying to pick a fight this early is shameful. You know a lot of staff and members read your blog and it seems to me you are deliberately trying to ratchet up drama and inflict chaos so you won’t be bored covering your 76th session.
If you love this state as much as you say you do lay off the Straus vs. Perry narrative for a while. Maybe they can work together to get some important work done.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
January 9th, 2013 at 8:12 am
I don’t create drama. Situations create their own drama. The situation in the Legislature at the moment is that one leader, Joe Straus, has an agenda to spend money on major issues, and another leader, Perry, has an agenda to resist spending. The ingredients for the fight are already present. I don’t have to pick it.
Reply »
Tellinitlikeitis says:
Anyone who loves this state would focus on Texas-sized problems that will color the future: Water, roads, energy, health care and education. Some want to invest in this state, which means addressing those problems; others want to ignore them because investing means betting on the future – and that means money.
Reply »
Johnny Comment says:
But instead we will focus on abotions and drug testing welfare recipients just like the far righ wants to do. Texas needs a wake up call.
Reply »
Indiana Pearl Reply:
January 9th, 2013 at 8:33 am
Amen to that!
Reply »
paulburka says:
I don’t blame the far right. I blame Perry and Dewhurst, trying to advance their careers on the backs of the poor. This sounds like something that came out of ALEC.
Reply »
Whoa, Nellie! Reply:
January 9th, 2013 at 10:15 am
Yet by his own words, “everything’s good” in Perry’s life. The man has no empathy at all for the ordinary citizens of this state. He only likes money, the power to dominate, and the limelight.
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
January 9th, 2013 at 11:42 am
Nellie, I think Perry wants to live his life through Johnny Manziel (who is on a roll with the Aggies winning 11 games this year and are likely BCS bowl contenders for either Sugar or Fiesta in 2013).
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Perry should have just sat down after these brief remarks:
“How ’bout them Aggies? Whoop!”
Then, since he’s a fan of testing, require this to be “taught to the test” in the “gubmint schools.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_Texas_A%26M_University_terms
Reply »
Johnny Comment Reply:
January 9th, 2013 at 3:59 pm
We should pass a constitutional amendment not allowing Aggies to be governor.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
January 10th, 2013 at 9:36 am
I strongly dissent from this comment.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
There will be conflict as there are two sides.
Sen Patrick has introduced SB-129 and Speaker Straus has said “we cannot cut our way to prosperity.”
Which do you prefer capping government spending or the taxNspend agenda?
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
January 9th, 2013 at 12:50 pm
JBB knows that there is no tax and spend agenda in this state.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
January 10th, 2013 at 1:49 pm
“1200 WOAI news reports that State Rep. Lon Burnham (D-Ft. Worth) one of the leaders of the Democratic Party in the Texas House, is proposing a ‘graduated personal income tax’ on all incomes in excess of $250,000 a year.”
Read more: http://radio.woai.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=119078&article=10686595#ixzz2HbUwtmqw
Reply »
Buck says:
The Speaker is traditionally the most powerful leader in Texas (because that’s the chamber that controls the budget bill).
Joe finally has room to assume that role.
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
January 9th, 2013 at 11:42 am
Buck, the Lieutenant Governor is also one of 2 powerful leaders in the state government as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lieutenant_Governor_of_Texas
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
January 9th, 2013 at 12:52 pm
Dewhurst has never been able to do much with the power of his office. The Senate has rebelled against him on previous occasions.
Reply »
Credentials Reply:
January 9th, 2013 at 5:02 pm
By its very nature, the office of the House Speaker tends to be the most powerful.
Reply »
Indiana Pearl Reply:
January 9th, 2013 at 2:49 pm
I find it interesting – as a new Texan – that the speaker can be powerful in Texas if the Lege is only in session for a short period every two years.
Reply »
Credentials Reply:
January 9th, 2013 at 5:03 pm
Watch and learn!
Reply »
Indiana Pearl Reply:
January 10th, 2013 at 3:19 pm
The current system seems like a leviathan – would any business make a budget only every two years with no ability to make adjustments?
Anonymous Reply:
January 9th, 2013 at 9:37 pm
States that have year-round legislatures tend to run into the problem that if they’re in the State Capitol all year, they think they have to do something in the State Capitol all year. The tight window in Texas forces a certain sort of efficiency, even if ‘efficiency’ means some bills die an early spring death (likewise in Washington, Congress was far more efficient in getting things done quickly before they air-conditioned the Capitol and the House and Senate office buildings and everyone wanted to get out of town for the summer. Maybe the next Constitutional amendment should be to ban all air-conditioning in any building between 1st Street West and 1st Street East adjacent to the Washington Mall…)
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
January 10th, 2013 at 3:56 pm
Responding to Ind Pearl’s Jan 10th comment, the current fiscal biennium ends 8/31 and in a few months they’ll make a big adjustment for the current biennium with the supplemental appropriations bill.
They also have other ways of being flexible that I think they chose not to use for political reasons last session, like making some appropriations contingent on the comptroller finding that more money than expected is available.
This isn’t to say you’re wrong, just that they have more tools to work with than you might think.
Reply »
Indiana Pearl Reply:
January 10th, 2013 at 7:57 pm
Do you mean 8/31/2012? Or 8/31/13? Since they’ll meeting for the next few months, what good does that do?
I’m not criticizing your comment, just askin’ questions.
Anonymous Reply:
January 10th, 2013 at 9:21 pm
I mean 8/31/13. The supplemental appropriations bill will change things and fix things for the last three or four months of the fiscal biennium, depending on when they finally pass it.
I think that in a lot of cases it’s only important that they get things in order before the last day of the biennium, but that’s an educated guess.
Some other tools they have include something called “budget execution” where they can transfer appropriations around during the legislative interim but I think things rarely get to that point. I think agencies can generally hang on until the legislature comes back in regular session and passes the supplemental bill.
If things got really bad, like during the oil bust in the eighties, the governor can call them into special session to redo appropriations to reflect a surprising and sudden drop in state revenues.
And there’s a lot of political pressure on the state agencies to make their budget work.
Reply »
anonymous says:
If a parent is using her welfare check to buy dope rather than, say, childcare related items, isn’t she, and not the state, harming her child (and not only by depriving the child of material goods but through the poor example she is setting and the destructive behaviour she is engaging in that might ensue from the drug use)?
Reply »
Whoa, Nellie! Reply:
January 9th, 2013 at 10:21 am
Evidence that drug abuse is rampant among the unemployed or indigent has never been produced anywhere. This is fear and prejudice and a brutal desire to punish the powerless and poor on the part of the well-to-do, who should count their blessings if they have a secure job and steady income. Why should hundreds of thousands be punished and treated like criminals based on anecdotes, paranoia, or a tiny, tiny number of abuses (which have yet to be documented)?
As someone who has been laid off in the past, through no fault of my own, I resent your attitude that somehow my misfortunes are grounds for unwarranted police state search and seizure. I bet you’re someone who rails against evil intrusive Big Government, aren’t you?
Reply »
Vernon Reply:
January 9th, 2013 at 12:02 pm
When Florida tried drug testing welfare recipients, it cost them more money than it saved. It also had no impact on case load. http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2012-08-31/news/fl-welfare-drug-testing-reimbursement-20120831_1_welfare-applicants-welfare-recipients-drug-users
When Texas tried steroid testing for high school athletes, it yielded similar dismal results. From CBS DFW wrote that for the 2011-2012 academic year, “The UIL report says 3,311 tests were conducted. Of those, nine were positive for steroid use.”
This is simply bad public policy.
Reply »
Indiana Pearl Reply:
January 9th, 2013 at 2:51 pm
It’s expensive bad policy.
paulburka Reply:
January 9th, 2013 at 12:57 pm
This is America. The government has no right to intrude upon how a legitimate recipient of public funds spends his or her money. I have read the stats on Florida’s program. It is true that it cost the state more to enforce than it saved. Doing drug testing of people who have committed no wrongful acts is a violation of that person’s right to be left alone.
Reply »
Dan C Reply:
January 9th, 2013 at 1:49 pm
I think you have hit on it. The people who want drug testing, etc. don’t view poor people, black people or brown people as “legitimate recipients of public funds”. That category is reserved for cronies and contributors, I’m sorry “job creators”. They would gladly spend $10 million on tests (they can buy stock in the company that administers the tests) to save $5 million on benefits.
Reply »
Indiana Pearl Reply:
January 9th, 2013 at 2:52 pm
You mean “old white people in nursing homes”?
Johnny Comment Reply:
January 9th, 2013 at 4:00 pm
Dan C: Well said. I had not thought of it quite liek that.
Anonymous Reply:
January 9th, 2013 at 2:09 pm
If you don’t want to be tested for drugs do not accept the taxpayer’s money. I don’t do drugs but it I did I would not have to worry about being tested by the state because I don’t take the taxpayer’s money in the form of welfare. Like everything there are tradeoffs. If I want to drive my car on public roads I have to get a drivers license and insurance.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
January 9th, 2013 at 2:43 pm
I know there are people who think like Anonymous, who, deep down, think that poor people really don’t deserve the taxpayers’ money. The fact is, there are legitimate programs that exist to assist people in our society who live in difficult circumstances. There is no link between applying for welfare and drug use. Drug testing is merely another form of government intrusion. What is the next step? Saying that you can’t buy a bag of potato chips with food stamps?
Vernon Reply:
January 9th, 2013 at 3:33 pm
If you win any money by scratching off a winning “Break the Bank” lotto ticket, isn’t that taxpayer money you’re receiving? Shouldn’t we extend drug testing to lotto winners?
After all, I think there might be a greater correlation between gambling and drug use than for welfare recipients.
Credentials Reply:
January 9th, 2013 at 5:06 pm
Actually, Anonymous, it’s your own money. Through previous employment, you’ve been paying into the system. When you get laid off, you have a right to that money.
Taxpayer money is also what would be spent on drug testing. Is that where you want your tax money to go? I’m sorry, twice the amount of your tax money, to be exact.
Credentials Reply:
January 9th, 2013 at 5:07 pm
I mean, that’s an oversimplification, but it’s the basic idea of how it works.
JK Reply:
January 9th, 2013 at 3:35 pm
Paul says, “it cost the state more to enforce than it saved”. How many other enforcement activities might fail that test? Think of all the costs the state could avoid and the additional revenue the state could have if we eliminated the minimum drinking age. Hoo-boy, let’s party!
Reply »
Dan C Reply:
January 9th, 2013 at 3:49 pm
The only reason I have ever heard used to justify these tests is to save taxpayer money from going to “dopers”. If you spend more money than you save what is the point? With other laws that need to be enforced, there are lots of other reasons for them, like public safety for example.
Tellinitlikeitis Reply:
January 9th, 2013 at 9:54 pm
keep an eye on Perry pals and cronies with ties to the drug testing companies
Reply »
Dan C says:
I don’t always agree with him, but Straus is intelligent and thoughtful and actually cares about the future of the state and quality of life. Perry has none of those qualities. He cares only about his own future national electoral prospects [which are non-existent], which he thinks are advanced by throwing red meat to the base. The base demands no taxes, no services, no effort at solving real world issues. The base throws a conniption fit at the mere mention of a fact that contravenes its dogma. I think the question for this session is — which vision of the future is more likely to be supported by the numerous freshman legislators?
Reply »
Beerman says:
Perry and his followers do not want to provide the basic services of the government and instead prefer to launch ideological crusades. It is this agenda that turns off moderates like myself and they need to understand that they have blown their credibility. Perry running in 2016 makes me laugh and sad at the same time. The very thought is intellectual incoherence and unadulterated BS!
Reply »
Calculatin Coke says:
Let me see if I understand you. Straus is visionary because he wants to spend money. The new Visionary Straus needs to undo the deeds of the apparently Near-Sighted Straus of 2011.
The Straus of 2011 proposed a budget with an even bigger cut to public education funding than the final $5.4 billion reduction. Final cuts represented the most (and only) significant per pupil education cut since 1949. And where was Speaker leadership in the special session on the Howard amendment to use the rainy day fund, which would have prevented ANY cuts?
The Straus of 2011 proposed to cut higher education by well more than the $1b finally adopted. Straus’ original budget cut TEXAS Grants by hundreds of millions more than the final budget cuts. These were the first state scholarship cuts since the Legislature created the TEXAS Grant program.
Straus did nothing on water or transportation funding. The gas tax has remained the same since the 1980s. Localities remain unable to increase gas taxes to fund projects and they actually killed the TTC.
In the blocking and tackling of policy governance, Straus’ interim economic development and manufacturing recommendations are still not done, despite his call for a top to bottom look and their centrality to Texas job growth. Despite 7 months of notice and massive issues on its plate, there is still no chair for House public education.
In his speech, there weren’t enough details to find the devil.
You call that visionary?
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
January 9th, 2013 at 2:25 pm
I will not attempt to defend Straus’s record in the 2011 session. I will only say that the 82nd Legislature was one of the worst in my memory, and he did nothing to make it better. Nothing good was going to happen because the right wing was in control and they were in a frenzy of budget-cutting.
Reply »
Tellinitlikeitis Reply:
January 9th, 2013 at 9:58 pm
Actually, the last gas tax increase came in 1991. Revenue from the gas tax peaked three years ago; Sure, there are more vehicles on the road but they are more fuel efficient. We now pay more to pay debt on road bonds than what we have in cash to build roads. We owe $17 billion in road bonds, which will cost some $31 billion to repay.
How smart conservative is that?
Reply »
WUSRPH says:
In Texas politics Perception is more important than reality any day. It will take time to determine if there is any reality in Staus’ talk.
Reply »
Texian Politico says:
Jack Lew’s signature is almost as bad as Rick Perry’s signature that looks like he printed it.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/signing-statement-lews-odd-mark-85955.html?hp=r6
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Bob Duell set the tone for what is going to happen with the budget, especially public education. They aren’t going to restore the cuts made unless the districts can show (meaning prove) that the cuts harmed education. Well, good luck with that. Not because it hasn’t, it sure has. But because if you don’t want something proven to you, you’ll always be able to bring a statistic that counters another. And then its a wash. Sorry, just not sure. You didn’t prove it to me. Also, restoring cuts is an admission that harm was done. Otherwise, why restore cuts that didn’t do any harm? I think a little money will be thrown to education; just enough for Rs in swing districts (I know, all six of them)to say to the R soccer moms that they don’t know what those bad ole dems are talking about. Everything is fine. Hey, your kid has THAT many more potential new friends in that 33 kid class. And the wheel will continue to turn.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
January 10th, 2013 at 9:25 am
The school funding lawsuit’s timetable may end up deciding what spending their is on schools. Remember, both the rich and poor districts are on the same side in this one, so if the court rules in their favor early enough in the current session, there will be voter pressure in both Republican and Democratic leaning districts to come up with a new funding formula that satisfies both sides (funding equalization for the poor districts and a non-property tax source of school income for the richer districts).
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
What I would like to see is less bored state workers, less government employees working one month less per year than private workers, less state holidays. We can start with a 10% across the board cut in bored state workers.
Then we can give the money freed up with cuts to democrat giveaway programs.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
a dagger in dem’s hearts
“Dewhurst, Straus, Perry See Opportunity for Tax Relief”:
http://www.texastribune.org/2013/01/09/taxes-going-down-top-leaders-say/
read the dem spin here get the facts elsewhere.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
can the pedantic bureaucrats running the BCS do worse? Yes, these inept blunders will continue in their quest to muck up the new bowl playoff system.
Reply »