Prelude to cronyism?
Rick Perry’s latest comment about CPRIT, the state’s embattled cancer-fighting agency, is disturbing. He says, six years after the agency was created with the mission of curing cancer, that the legislative intent included “creating wealth.” At the same time, Perry dismissed the importance of basic research, saying “Basic research takes a long time and may or may not ever create wealth.” He was quoted by the San Antonio Express-News as saying, “The way that the Legislature intended it was to get cures into the public’s arena as soon as possible and at the same time create economic avenues (from) which wealth can be created,” said Perry. He is creating this supposed legislative intent from whole cloth, years after the fact.
We have seen this movie before. We all know who the beneficiaries of “creating wealth” will be. Sooner or later, everything the governor touches leads back to cronyism. Perry is changing the mission of CPRIT to refocus it from research to commercialization. The deemphasis on research will greatly crimp CPRIT’s ability to fulfill its original mission.
Tagged: CPRIT, rick perry
Don Q says:
Just like the plans for higher ed. The emphasis is on short-term profits, not long-term research.
Reply »
Distinguished Gentleman Reply:
January 10th, 2013 at 11:40 am
Don Q says:
“…short-term profits, not long-term reseach.”
While we are speaking of “term” it is absolutely critical that Texas make James R. “Rick” Perry a term-limited Governor.
This clown has done enough damage to Texas.
Sometimes, the electorate must be saved from itself. My fear is that if he runs again for Governor in 2014, darn it, he will WIN.
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
January 11th, 2013 at 3:32 pm
Dinstiguished, I’ve been telling you that Perry will NOT run again in 2014 because both Perry and Abbott’s donor base is identical considering they get backing from the hardcore conservative base.
Abbott will be our new Governor on January 20, 2015: being the first State AG since Mark White to be elected governor.
How many terms will Abbott serve ?
A. 1
B. 2
C. 3
Reply »
John Johnson says:
Is it proper to call a whore a whore here? Is it possible that physcologically a whore doesn’t realize that they are a whore? Is it possible that they can convince themselves that “pay for play” is simply the way that all business is conducted? Should we allow them to use the excuse “Everyone does it”, or “This is the way it has always been done”? Should we feel sorry for people like this, or expose them for what they are and run them out of town? Maybe both?
Reply »
Beerman Reply:
January 10th, 2013 at 10:59 am
Burka always has uncommon wisdom on these type of maneuvers by the priveleged politicians in Austin!
Reply »
Julie says:
House Bill 14, which created the organization’s intent is to expand cancer research and create “high quality jobs” in the process. The bill says nothing about creating new wealth. Jobs, yes; wealth, no.
Reply »
Seb Cole says:
Here’s the difference, according to the comptroller’s financial reporting page. Note that research comes first; then development.
Research is defined as a systematic study directed toward fuller scientific knowledge or understanding of the subject studied.
Development is the systematic use of knowledge and understanding gained from research directed toward the production of useful materials, devices, systems or methods — including design and development of prototypes and processes.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
I’d like to suggest there’s a way if looking at this where the glass is 85% full.
The governor recognizes that sometimes public expenditures create wealth. That’s a starting point where all of us can have a productive conversation in a lot of different contexts.
Absolutely we should be on the lookout for the kind of cronyism where the fix is in. Certainly we should scrutinize proposals to spend public money to create wealth for wisdom and feasibility and practicality. Of course there will be differences in philosophy about how do approach these matters.
But there is a connection between public expenditures for water and roads and public education and port facilities and surely some other public goods and the wealth of Texas. The governor of Texas is among the many intelligent people in this state who recognize that.
We can start from there. By all means look into how well the cancer money and the enterprise fund money has been spent. But in today’s political environment I’d be thrilled to have all sides acknowledge some first principles and work from there.
Reply »
Vernon Reply:
January 10th, 2013 at 1:06 pm
I’m sorry but recognizing the simple premise of ‘once you spend money, that money goes to someone else’s benefit’ doesn’t mean one is “intelligent.” It means you understand what happens at the grocery checkout line.
But that’s not what Perry is saying. He’s saying the lege embarked on this project with the intent to “create wealth.” What’s more disturbing is that he seems to downplay cancer research because it may or may not have a positive impact on wealth creation.
I wonder how that makes cancer patients feel knowing the state spends millions on cancer research but not so much focusing on better treatments and cures; but to make people wealthy?
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
January 10th, 2013 at 2:30 pm
No need to be sorry. I think you may have meant to reply to another poster since I don’t recognize what I said in your description of what I said.
Reply »
Vernon Reply:
January 11th, 2013 at 1:05 pm
Then let me clarify. You said that when the state spends money, it creates wealth. You also said Perry is “among the many intelligent people” who recognize that.
I’m saying that the ability to recognize your simple premise about ‘spending money makes the receiving party wealthier’ isn’t a great indicator of intelligence. Anyone who’s conducted a simple business transaction – like buying groceries – already understands this concept, so it seems disingenuous to imply that some lawmakers don’t.
I’m also saying that Perry’s attempt to re-prioritize CPRIT’s original intent to wealth creation is insulting. It’s insulting to taxpayers and those who created and supported the original bill. It’s especially insulting to cancer victims and their families who are praying for the breakthrough treatments and research for which CPRIT was created.
vietvet3 Reply:
January 13th, 2013 at 9:59 pm
“Intelligent” and “Perry” in the same sentence.
Reply »
Dallas says:
Gee, I just heard a long interview with Ted Cruz who was repeating that government must get out of the way of business, stay out of the economy, etc. Perry’s idea of the government creating private wealth, and therefore determining winners and losers, is off message.
Reply »
John Johnson Reply:
January 10th, 2013 at 12:41 pm
Amen. Educate, build roads, regulate water, electricity, insurance, etc. Leave it at that. Let me decide where I want to charitably give or invest my money in private enterprise. I don’t want to give it, through taxes and fees, to the state or Feds, and allow Perry or Obama, or Strauss or Pelosi, to invest it for me and make personal and political gains from doing so. It is so stinky…and should be illegal. You would think Republicans would agree, yet they have morphed into some of the worst culprits. Perry has become this group’s poster boy.
Reply »
Alan says:
Research that creates sufficient wealth to generate a favorable return on investment will be supplied by the private sector. The government shouldn’t need to sweeten the deal. When government does fund research, it should be done for the public benefits it aims to generate.
It doesn’t surprise me that a man who barely passed his way through animal husbandry at TAMU wouldn’t understand this.
Reply »
WUSRPH Reply:
January 10th, 2013 at 1:35 pm
You mean like the “fracking” research that was almost entirely paid for by the Federal Government when private industry would not touch the idea but which is now yielding so much wealth for the private sector. Of how about all that electronic research for defense purposes that is behind all those little gadgets folks love so much…or all those other research projects funded by government that have shaped the modern world?
Reply »
John Johnson Reply:
January 10th, 2013 at 2:19 pm
Surely, you are not suggesting that we would not have a successful fracking program today, or all the electronic devices we now rely on, WUSRPH, if it was not for government funding.
Heck, if it’s available, or could be, I’m going to ask for it. If my neighbors bought their 16 year old a new car, mine are goin
Reply »
WUSRPH Reply:
January 10th, 2013 at 3:46 pm
Fracking was rejected by the energy industry UNTIL AFTER govt. funded reseach showed it would work…Soo many of our other industries are also the result of govt. funded research….or direct expenditures…For example, all the origianl Dow Chemical Company installations at Freeport were paid for as part of the cost of national defense for WW II.
Johnny Comment Reply:
January 11th, 2013 at 8:05 am
Or all the research done on gun violence and death, causes of gun violence….oops, the NRA backed by our fine Texas congrssional team voted that out….
Reply »
jd says:
“Creating wealth” sounds to me like “picking winners”
Reply »
Dan C says:
When it’s Rick Perry talking, it means “paying off my contributors”.
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
January 11th, 2013 at 3:36 pm
Another sign that Perry is NOT running again in 2014 and if I was a fly inside the Texas Governor’s Mansion, the conversation between Governor and Mrs. Perry would sound like this:
First Lady Anita Thigpen Perry: Rick, you better NOT run for a 4th term because I’ve had it up to here with your ego.
Governor Perry: I really need help to stop my addiction of being governor and what can I do?
First Lady Anita Thigpen Perry: You can start by calling Greg Abbott and tell him that you are NOT running for re-election in 2014 because you don’t want to be a two-time loser.
Governor Perry: Okay sweetie, I’ll do that.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
“The nation’s largest abortion provider maintained its infamous title, performing 333,964 abortions—a record for the organization that received 45 percent of its revenues from taxpayer-funded government sources during the 2011–2012 fiscal year.”
Cecile Richards make us all proud to be liberals.
Reply »
Vernon says:
I know this is an old argument, but there’s no long-term financial reward for the medical industry in curing any disease. They make more money by charging for multiple prolonged treatments for that disease. There’s not much money in a one-time cure.
And that’s my problem with Perry’s new assertion. What will happen if there is a fantastic new treatment discovered, but the industry doesn’t find it lucrative enough? Will that new breakthrough be stifled because it’s considered unfeasible for commercialization?
Reply »
John Johnson Reply:
January 10th, 2013 at 1:47 pm
Or maybe cutting back the production of some drugs to drive the price up. Some things need regulating. Big Business will never police itself and do a good job of it.
Reply »
vietvet3 Reply:
January 13th, 2013 at 10:04 pm
That is why big pharma is not pursuing new antibiotics with proper diligence: Antibiotics provide a quick cure. Much more profitable to develop drugs which are taken for one’s lifetime.
Reply »
WUSRPH says:
There is only one thing you can say to our Beloved Governor Oops…As Joseph welch to Joe McCarthy:
“Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”
Of course, he answer is “NO”.
Reply »
WUSRPH says:
Or perhaps more appropriately as Oliver Cromwell said to the Rump Parliament:
“..You have been sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of god, go!.”
Reply »
Anon says:
More myopia from the schizophrenic crony. Government stay out unless it is for my benefit.
Reply »
Ben Quick says:
Maybe we should talk with Sen. Nelson – Lance Armstrong and Dewhurst about what they were supporting? I don’t remember them talking about creating wealth?
Reply »
Indiana Pearl says:
Perry’s grades from A & M suggest he doesn’t have a clue about basic research.
Reply »
WUSRPH says:
It is funny that what Oops describes as one of the two top purposes for the Cancer Fund sounds a lot like he believes it was to be used for “economic stimulus”…but I guess that is only bad when the Federal Govt. does it…
Reply »
Dr. Steven Watkins says:
Paul,
I looked at the comments in the San Antonio paper, and being a top-notch critic of our beloved govenor, I can see where he is coming from in this situation. I have no problem with commercialization being a part of the situation; what I have a problem with is the constant shortchanging that people try to do in order to make a fast buck. You have got to have checks and balances so that money is spent properly and wisely. If the legislature can install those checks and balances to make sure that the need between research and commercialization is heeded, then this situation can prosper everyone.
Reply »
paulburka says:
The checks and balances were the oversight committee, and it is apparent that they did not work very well.
Reply »
Johnny Comment Reply:
January 11th, 2013 at 8:03 am
And never have with this guy.
Reply »
Jewish Tee Party Lesbian says:
Shut down CPRIT, shut down the corrupt foundation and put the money into research at our universities and research facilities. Profitting off of cancer is immoral.
Reply »
Indiana Pearl Reply:
January 10th, 2013 at 8:00 pm
Amen to that, sister!
Reply »
John Johnson says:
OK…..the Comptroller tells us we have a substantial surplus, Medicaid, education and our roads are screaming for it, some are telling taxpayers it is going back to them, and almost no one is mentioning repaying what they have lifted from dedicated accounts. Who serves on the oversight committee responsible for guarding these funds? Anyone going to make them pay it back?
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
January 10th, 2013 at 7:39 pm
JJ, I wish I could tell you whether they actually lifted the funds or only pretended to lift them. Let us know if you manage to get a straight answer to that question.
This biennium, since we’ll end with a surplus, I imagine they only pretended to lift the funds. I think. Probably.
The question is, did they actually spend the funds for other purposes or only fail to spend the dedicated funds for the intended purpose and count the funds toward certifying general government spending in the general appropriations act?
Again, good luck to you if you try to find the answer. If you do, say hello to Amelia Earhart and Elvis for me.
Reply »
John Johnson Reply:
January 10th, 2013 at 9:02 pm
You are certainly correct. All I know is how many millions are in the accounts that never make it to the intended recipient. TP&W for instance has been asking for contributions here in an ad on this website. Why? They show to have several million dollars in their dedicated account. We all know why.
The one question though is what happened to all our gas tax money that TxDot was supposed to be spending on new roads.
Reply »
FLPD Reply:
January 10th, 2013 at 10:33 pm
I don’t think this answers your question about the motor fuels tax, but since you’re interested in truth in budgeting, it’s my understanding they used the motor fuels tax to temporarily pump up the general revenue account so they could certify the budget. Gasoline taxes that would have been remitted in September 2013 are now due in August 2013 and the regular collections for July and August 2013 will also be retained in the general revenue account and not transferred to the highway fund until next biennium. Maybe they can undo these tricks since there is now a surplus.
WUSRPH Reply:
January 11th, 2013 at 10:17 am
Whether they “took” the dedicated money to fund something else or only “counted” it to certify the budget and left it in the account unspent depends on the law creating the individual dedicated funds. Normally dedicated funds cannot be used for any other purpose…i.e. they cannot be spent for any other purpose. However, if they are left unappropriated in the treasury they can be used to help certify the budget. A few dedicated funds, however, have language in the law creating them allowing the money to be spent for other purposes as well as the “dedicated” one. For example, the law I helped pass to fund the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officers & Certification back in the late 1970s specifically provided that any funds not appropriated to the agency could be used for other purposes. In general, however, most do not have this kind of a provision. In those cases, what happens is that part of the fund is just left sitting in the Treasury for certification purposes. This deprives the program for which the funds were intended of some money it would otherwise get.
Reply »
WUSRPH Reply:
January 11th, 2013 at 11:07 am
As to the Highway Fund, it is a different kind of situation. Most of the other “dedicated funds” are dedicated only by a statute (a law). The Highway Fund, on the other hand, is dedicated by the State Constitution that puts it in a different class and makes it “untouchable” when it comes to certifying the budget will be balanced.
I should explain here that the only part of the State Budget that must be “balanced” is that portion funded by so-called General Revenue Funds such as the sales tax, the tax on oil and natural gas production and various fees and small taxes. The GR Fund, in facts, represents less than half of the total state budget.
When it is said that that budget is “balanced” it means that the State Comptroller has certified that there will be enough money in the General Revenue Fund sometime during the two-year budget period to pay all the appropriations made out of that fund. It says nothing about the rest of the budget, which is funded by other sources than the GR Fund.
It is certifying that the funds will be available in the GR funds that the statutorily dedicated funds come in. Since they are deposited in the General Revenue Fund, by a few accounting twist ands turns they can be counted toward the necessary total required for a certification if they are left in the account unspent. The Highway Fund dollars on the other hand, cannot be counted for that purpose.
It should be noted that the important language is “enough to pay”, not that the bills will actually be paid during that period. In fact, they cannot be since some of the money that would have to be spent to pay them would have to come from those dedicated funds and they cannot be spent for that purpose. Instead, every two years millions of dollars of “accrued expenses” have to be paid out of the next budget. This is possible because the state operates on a “cash basis”, rather than an accrual one. Remember that next time someone tells you that Texas has “a balanced budget”.
What people are complaining about when they talk about highway fund dollars being “diverted” to other purposes is the fact that: First, one quarter of the income to that fund is constitutionally dedicated to public education. And second, that the Legislature uses some of the funds (up to $1 billion per year) to finance “highway connected” expenses such as the Texas Dept. of Public Safety. This means that there is that much less to actually spend on highways themselves.
WUSRPH Reply:
January 11th, 2013 at 11:11 am
Generally, they only “pretend” to lift them…They cannot spend them for other purposes, but by accounting twists they can count them for budget certfication. (I have tried to epxlain that better below.)
Reply »
WUSRPH Reply:
January 11th, 2013 at 11:34 am
If anyone really wants to get a real picture of just what Texas spend during a two-year budget period; they might ask the Comptroller if she still produces two forms of her Annual Report. The official report is based on “Cash Accounting” and it is the one that says we had a balanced budget. However, under Bullock the agency started producing another Annual Report based on the GAAP accounting procedures. That one used “accrued spending” and shows that hundreds of millions of dollars of bills accrued during the budget period are actually paid out of the next budget.In other words, the “balanced budget” is a myth.
Indiana Pearl says:
There seem to be a lot of posters on this blog named “Anonymous” or “anonymous.” How many folks do they represent, two or multitudes?
Reply »
Vote Vermin Supreme! says:
Let’s be honest — our governor has an integrity problem.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
suddenly dems are concerned about budgeting, how cute.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
uh oh republicans are in charge:
“The bottom line is that for too long, Louisiana’s workers and small businesses have suffered from having a state tax structure that is too complex and that holds back economic prosperity,” Jindal said in a statement released by his office. “It’s time to change that so people can keep more of their own money and foster an environment where businesses want to invest and create good-paying jobs.”
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
meanwhile in Texas:
“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.
It calls for a four percent tax on all income over $250,000, and five percent plus $10,000 on all incomes in excess of a quarter million a year.”
Read more: http://radio.woai.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=119078&article=10686595#ixzz2HfXwrauP
Reply »
WUSRPH Reply:
January 11th, 2013 at 11:15 am
I wonder if it is the same bill that former State Rep. Paul Moreno used to introduce every year. It called for a similar state income tax but had the tax due on April 31st. (Think about it.)
Reply »
Johnny Comment says:
Rick Perry is sorta like Huey Long, only slimier.An integrity problem? Really? Really? The Texas GOP has an integrity problem for supporting him.
Reply »
WUSRPH says:
I think you mean Earl Edwards, not Huey P….Long did a lot of bad things…but unlike Gov. Oops he also spendt millions on better schools, hospitals and roads…His philosophy was more “a little for me and my friends and a lot for the rest of you”…Perry seems not to care about “the rest of you”.
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
January 11th, 2013 at 3:38 pm
You mean Huey’s brother, Earl Kemp Long, who served two terms as governor.
Perry reminds me of Nelson Rockefeller: dividing people for his own political gain so he can enjoy the benefits of Texans tearing each other apart.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Cronyism only works when you jump ship before your insider dealing catches up with you. CPRIT is the tip of the iceberg.
http://www.texasobserver.org/oz-systems-texas-pre-k-accountability/
Reply »
John Johnson says:
WUSRPH…you say you helped pass a law that allowed “unused” funds to be diverted. Where did these funds come from? How were they collected?
My main gripe is with dedicated accounts that are funded by a Texans’ specific choice to do so… like a Texas Parks & Wildlife license plate that they purchase with the specific understanding that the money will be going to TP&W for maintaining our state parks, employing enough officers, and insuring that they have enough vehicles and equipment to function properly. The same with the fee we pay on each electricity bill to help the underprivileged pay their electricity bills. The funds in both these accounts never get turned loose for their intended purposes.
I don’t know whether or not to call it crooked, but I do know that it is wrong. Any pol who, in their most recent campaign, bragged about being part of Texas’ “balanced budget” should
be run out of town on a rail. Start with Rick Perry.
Reply »
John Johnson says:
One other thing, WUSRPH….I appreciate the knowledge you bring to this blog. Being a Newbie to Texas politics due to my just going through the motions and never paying attention for 35 years of my adult life, your shared experiences are interesting and enlightening. Thanks.
Reply »
BCinBCS Reply:
January 12th, 2013 at 2:55 am
I second that.
Reply »