Shapleigh: “In my view you miss the point.”
I am going to publish below an e-mail and corresponding op-ed that I received from Senator Eliot Shapleigh. It requires no explanation.
# # # #
This is Shapleigh’s letter to me:
I’ve read your recent pieces on major issues, including tuition. In my view you miss the point. After fifteen years of what the world now recognizes as the “Bush brand”, Texas is now firmly in “Grover’s Tub”. Your reporting misses the point because your world view can’t see over the Tub’s edge.
For years now, Grover Norquist has been the ideological father of the Bush-Perry-Craddick school of governance. His ideology—‘shrink government so small that we can then drown it in a bathtub’—has run Texas since Bush was first elected Governor.
Now, in agency after agency, tax cuts for the wealthy, incompetent leadership and irresponsible governance have created enormous challenges that will take Texans years to correct.
The question you pose about tuition de-regulation is in fact far deeper. Take the whole package—the Grover package—that is the issue. Tax cuts over kids, crony contracts over competence, polluters over regulators, predatory lenders over consumer protections—ask the question about that package, then measure where we are in every agency—not just at UT with tuition deregulation.
My response: I think everyone understands that Texas is a low-tax, low-services state. I don’t think it is fair or accurate to ascribe this state of affairs to the last 14 years. Democrats governed Texas much as Republicans are now doing. They didn’t pay much attention to environmental issues. They didn’t rein in lenders; in fact, they lifted restrictions on usury. The special interests almost always get their way. That was true when the Democrats were in charge and it is true when the Republicans are in charge. At least the lobby had to fight for what they could get when the Democrats ran the state. Now the leadership just lavishes them with goodies. The one thing Democrats did do differently than Republicans was raise taxes when the going got tough. They raised the gasoline tax and the sales tax and the franchise tax, and the world did not come to an end, and the economy did just fine.
I know that it suits Senator Shapleigh’s purpose to lump Bush in with Perry and Craddick, but the truth is that Bush went along with Democratic spending priorities when he was governor. I don’t recall that he ever vetoed a line item. Perry accurately, though unkindly, described him as a big spender.
Texas government is the way that it is because this is a conservative state, and there is little movement for change. The Republicans are in trouble because they have overreached in areas like tuition deregulation. Senator Shapleigh writes as if he hasn’t followed the election returns. The Republicans have paid dearly for their ideological zeal in the Perry/Craddick/Dewhurst years. Their brand is tarnished and they are losing ground in Texas.
I admire Eliot Shapleigh, and I think it is important that he reminds us of the shortcomings of state government. But it didn’t start with Perry/Craddick/Dewhurst, and state leaders through the years haven’t needed a Grover Norquist to discipline them into keeping this a low-tax, low-service state.
[Back to Shapleigh] Herein below is our recent OP ED piece on Texas Higher education. You should run it in your column.
In our view, the real question is what price has Texas paid for fifteen years of Bush—Perry—Craddick?
More importantly, what are Texans willing to do to change it?
# # # #
Let’s analyze core issues in higher ed. Take two plain vanilla Midwest America universities, each with 29,000+ students—call them Texas Tech and University of Iowa. Now, let’s look at state general revenue support over a decade. The difference between Iowa and Tech is $1.84B—that is billion–with a “B”. Basically, that’s why we have tuition deregulation.
Here’s some history—in 2003, Craddick killed the inheritance tax, then he gave unelected regents (most of whom are millionaires and direct beneficiaries of Craddick’s tax cuts) the right to tax students. Dollar for dollar, revenue from a tax paid only by millionaires was replaced with tuition hikes paid by students—all outside the control of lawmakers so Craddick’s supporters could go back to districts and run again on ‘no new tax’ pledges.
At UTEP tuition, fees, books and parking have risen 73% since 2003. Craddick and Company refuse to consider real revenue sources because long ago—they took Grover’s pledge and now refuse to engage in real governance.
In agency after agency, Texans now face the same issue presented by tuition deregulation—not enough money to take care of basic needs and not enough courage and leadership to fund those needs in an effective way.
Let’s do a quick tour: TXDOT is $86b in the hole. Craddick’s school finance plan has districts on the verge of Chapter 11. TCEQ is run by Baker Botts. At CPS, ½ the investigators quit every six months due to America’s lowest child investigator pay and highest investigator case loads; agency directors pay $4m fines to the feds rather than fund basic levels of investigators for kids.
At HHS, more Texans sit on some waiting lists than actually get served. Hawkins has paid a billion for the basic software program to [implement--added by pb] HB 2292, and it still doesn’t work. Perry’s mansion burned down because cameras quit working and DPS cut staff.
We are last in dropouts, first in air pollution; 48th in average SAT’s and 45th in home ownership. We are last in Texans who have health insurance. Seven Texas MSA’s rank among America’s top ten in volume of subprime second mortgages.
Here, on the streets of El Paso, vendors hawk payday loans on street corners that carry 1100% per annum interest rates. More than one in three in my hometown no longer have any health insurance.
In thirty years or so, Texas will be home to 50m Texans. Hispanics will long [have been] the majority. With current leadership and current values, ask your readers this question–are we even close to preparing for the next generation?
Are we even close to taking care of Texas today?
Is a tiny band from the far right now discredited everywhere but Austin, that has long valued tax cuts for the wealthy over good schools for kids responsible enough to continue governing Texas?
That’s the question in Craddick’s race—and every race for the next few years.
Senator Eliot Shapleigh
“Don’t Mess with Texas’ Universities”
“It’s mighty reckless to mess with Texas.” Many of us remember Johnny Dee & The Rocket 88’s singing those now-famous lyrics when the “Don’t Mess with Texas” campaign launched in 1986.
The message was clear—don’t trash the Lone Star State. But today, over twenty years later, we know more than a few dared and some, sadly, succeeded.
These polluters didn’t trash us with garbage on the road. They did it through a subtler, more complete way—through winner-take-all, scorched-earth politics. For over twenty years, these individuals promised honest, hard-working Texans one thing for a vote, and then gave us another.
What they gave us is failed government. As they lined their pockets with tax breaks and lucrative government contracts, they decimated state funding—and with irresponsible under-funding foster children would die; under-supervised youth prisoners would be sexually abused; the mentally handicapped would be neglected; property taxes would skyrocket; college tuition would hit an historical high; and the governor’s mansion would burn down.
In 1960 Barry Goldwater said: “I have little interest in streamlining government or making it more efficient….my aim is not to pass laws but to repeal them.” His line was repeated next by Ronald Reagan, then most recently by Grover Norquist, whose vision is even more vivid than all the rest: “Our goal is to shrink government to the size where we can drown it in a bathtub.”
Well, Norquist ought to be proud of himself. He did it. We’re drowning.
In agency after agency, irresponsible under-funding, repeated firing of career public servants, and consistent appointing of incompetent leadership have left entire departments fundamentally unprepared to govern and succeed against the challenges of a 21st century Texas.
So, let’s talk higher education. With an expected population of 50 million by 2040, the future of our state will be defined by the education of our people.
Across the political spectrum nearly every thoughtful elected leader will say to his public that in a 21st century knowledge-based economy Texans must compete and that education is the key to competition, jobs and prosperity.
So, how do Goldwater’s successors compete in higher education in Texas today?
One measure is the number of universities that have achieved Tier One status . While the term “Tier One” is not specifically defined, a total of $100 million in annual research expenditures is often cited as the benchmark. Based on a report from the Center for Measuring University Performance, the largest U.S. state, California, has eight Tier One public universities that serve undergraduate students. Texas, the second largest state, has only two: UT-Austin and Texas A&M.
How did this happen? In 2003, Tom Craddick and others decided that the best way to address a state budget deficit and deliver an enormous tax break to the wealthiest Texans would be twofold: the elimination of Texas’ inheritance tax and higher education tuition deregulation.
Back then, millionaires paid the Texas inheritance tax, which is a “pick up” tax on the federal inheritance tax. Thus, instead of having a distinctly separate inheritance tax, Texas piggy-backs on the federal version, and the tax due to Texas is equal to the federal credit allowed for state inheritance taxes paid. This system takes advantage of the federal credit to reallocate part of the total tax from the federal government to the state. Under this system, in 2002, Texas millionaires delivered over $334 million to the Texas treasury.
At the federal level, however, George Bush led a successful effort to phase out the inheritance tax, which left a big hole in the Texas budget. Other states chose to protect themselves from the immediate and large revenue loss by choosing not to conform to the federal change by decoupling the state inheritance tax from the federal version.
Decoupling from federal inheritance taxes would have protected Texas against the loss of a steady and sizable revenue stream since, unlike other tax revenue streams, the inheritance tax and other estate taxes are fairly consistent and not subject to the ups and downs of the economy.
As Texas is heavily reliant on the varying revenue generated by the regressive sales tax, it is particularly important to protect the revenue streams that are consistent and progressive. Despite these advantages, repeated efforts to decouple the inheritance tax have been buried by Republican leadership.
With over $300 million suddenly moved from Texas’ coffers to the pockets of the wealthy, Craddick and Perry had to do something to balance the budget. Enter tuition deregulation. Under this new idea, tuition would be deregulated, set by individual institution’s Board of Regents, and float to the level that the market might bear.
What has been the result of tuition deregulation? Skyrocketing prices to Texas’ students and their families. From fall 2003 to fall 2007, total academic charges at UT-Dallas have gone up 66 percent; at UT-San Antonio, 63 percent. Meanwhile, prices continue to rise. In March 2008, the UT Board of Regents approved tuition and fee rates for the next two years, once again increasing the cost of higher education. As a result, fall 2009’s total academic charges at UT-El Paso will be over 73 percent higher than fall 2003.
At the same time that tuition has soared, state funding for higher education has decreased and grant programs have failed to keep pace with the state’s needs. At UT System institutions, inflation-adjusted state appropriations per fulltime equivalent student have decreased, on average, 17 percent from 2001 to 2006. The declining state appropriations has impacted higher education on a statewide level.
Take UT-Austin, often considered a crown jewel of higher education in Texas. Within a 12-member national comparison group, UT-Austin ranks ninth in per student funding from tuition and state general revenue. Simply put, other states are better at supporting their universities. The University of Minnesota, for example, has $6,000 more per student than UT-Austin; the University of North Carolina, $6,500 more; and UCLA, $7,500 more.
Let’s compare two Midwest universities—both striving to compete in a knowledge-based world. In nearly every state, universities are the keys to jobs—research today unlocks the potential of tomorrow. Take a look at the University of Iowa, with just over 30,000 students. In 2008, Iowa lawmakers appropriated $348 million in state money to support and run the University. Now let’s take Texas Tech University in Lubbock, nearly the same size with 28,000 students. Tech received $164 million in fiscal year 2008. Over the course of ten years, at that level of support, Tech would get $1.84 billion less than Iowa.
How do we expect Tech to compete?
Funding for financial aid programs have also failed to keep up with the enormous growth in tuition. The TEXAS Grant program has served as a successful financial aid tool for Texas students in financial need. However, due to inadequate funding, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board estimates that over 90,000 eligible students will not be served by the program in 2009. To make matters worse, the Coordinating Board just voted to recommend changes to the TEXAS Grant program that will disproportionately and negatively impact the very students that the state has long sought to push toward higher education: low income, minority, and first generation college students—as well as students with disabilities.
What do we do? Right now, Texans face a choice. Do we want another decade of leaders whose goal is to destroy our state’s government? After all, our government is us—it is people doing through government that which we can not do alone.
Or do we want responsible leaders who will make the hard choices to take Texas into the 21st Century?
We can’t afford to let anyone mess with Texas again. Here in Texas, our children, our future and our state deserve better.
Tagged: de-regulation, eliot shapleigh, grover norquist, higher ed, senate, texas, tuition.
Pancho says:
Yes, but in his view, we need to raise taxes, or establish an income tax. That is not exactly a good idea in this economic climate. Even the incoming Obama administration has suggested the Bush tax cuts may not be repealed.
Texas may have a surplus, but who knows what will happen next year. Oil, the one thing that has shielded Texas from the rest of the national economy, has dropped.
We may need higher taxes at some point, but it is a bit deceiving to say States X, Y, and Z fund their universities with this amount of money, without explaining how States X, Y, and Z raise those funds. California for all its great universities is a fiscal mess.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Pancho,
But by that logic there is never a time to address the revenue problem though an income tax because when the economy is good you will tell us the best way to ruin the economy is an income tax.
In both good and bad economic times Texas does not fund higher ed the way it should. But if you don’t invest in higher education then don’t be upset when in 5 to 10 years Texas companies leave for states like California because they have an educated workforce and 4 times the number of tier-one institutions.
Reply »
Pancho says:
California has a larger workforce and more tier-one institutions than Texas now. With that said, companies and people have left California. Fluor left California for Texas a couple years ago, and RIM picked Texas over California to establish its U.S. headquarters.
When companies relocate they are more likely to consider real estate costs, labor force issues, transportation, market access, regulatory environment, labor costs, among other things before they consider higher education resources.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
November 25th, 2008 at 3:44 am
What Pancho says about what companies consider when they relocate is true for some companies but not for others. One of the areas in which Texas has not been able to compete is pharmaceuticals and biotechnology. I remember reading a statistic that the great majority of biotech companies are located within thirty miles of a tier-one university.
Reply »
Tellnitlikeitis says:
Pancho,
The problem facing Texas is that infrastructure is hardly keeping up with population, which increases by about 1,400 people per day – mas o menos.
The gasoline tax has not changed since 1991. What do you think has happened to the cost of right-of-way and construction during those past 18 years?
Is it no wonder that we are falling further behind on roads and highways?
Water?
We have identified needs that amounnt to billions of dollars – but no willingness to invest in our future.
Public education is a disaster. Tne next school funding lawsuit in just around the corner.
This state will not invest in its future.
Guess what happens when we get there?
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Well at least 2 of the 6 you mention are directly related to education – labor force issues & labor costs. But aside from that, yes, companies consider many elements when they look to relocate. However, no amount of low cost & low regulation will make-up for a state that has one of the lowest high school graduation rates and degree attainment rates. Getting companies to relocate because they count on tax incentives and lax regulations is not a long-term plan for growth.
Organizations know that to be sustainable, they need an educated workforce and institutions of education that are centers for R&D. (Not to mention they like nice schools to send their kids to and have decent roads on which to drive to work – all of which demand public investment).
Reply »
Pancho says:
As I said in my first post, at some point we may need to raise taxes, but now is not the time. If Obama, the alleged socialist, is backing off from repealing taxes than we should take note. If Grover’s cure all is starve the beast, Shapleigh’s is let the beast into a Golden Corral.
California has nice roads? Eh. And nice school? Riiight.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
I read somewhere that Texas and 6 other state are the only states not facing massive budget shortfalls… I think that speaks for its self. Government cannot be all things to all people. Texas has one of the best economies in the US because government here is not as intrusive as say New York of Cali… If you want to go to college my suggestion is to study and try for a scholarship and save money. I know, I know we cannot ask people to have a hand in their future earning potential.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Pancho,
But as I indicated in my first post, are you saying we should raise taxes when times are good then? I suspect you would argue that the fastest way to slow growth then would be new taxes. See…in Grover’s world (and maybe yours) taxes are always bad so there is never a time increase taxes.
The whole Norquist cure is to both starve government and then run it badly – see Katrina response.
Reply »
texun says:
A favorable business climate in Texas means: 1. Nominal enforcement of environmental and other regulations. 2. Passing along the costs of economic development to taxpayers through tax exemptions and under assessments. 3. Holding to a highly regressive taxation system to encourage the amassing of capital. 4. Having a large unskilled work force for construction and other industries. 5. Discouraging labor unions. 6. Keeping control of mass media in the hands of large corporations. 7. Opting for privatisation of public services, even if they are poorly delivered by contractors. 8. Having ready access to elected officials through purchase of tickets to overprices “orientation” functions. 9. Having a nominal public ethics code. 10. Putting children’s health and education on the back burner. 11. Having a system of toll roads, owned and operated by private corporations. 12. Making Grover Norquist the unofficial guru of Texas politics after he has lost credibility in other arenas.
Reply »
Jared says:
Remember when the Democrats were in control in Austin and everything was perfect? Schools had plenty of money and never complained, the environment was perfectly clean, tax revenues were sufficient and never needed to be adjusted, tuition was free and the universities had no needs. You don’t? That’s because it never existed.
Reply »
ok says:
If Shapeligh wasn’t a loser someone might care.
What has he ever accomplished? In fact, he’s known for not accomplishing. He’s the guy Obama says we need change from.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
ok,
It’s the truth no matter who the messenger might be. If all we did was listen to those that have “accomplished” something in the Texas Legislature we might be waiting a while.
Reply »
geographylady says:
I am just glad my kids are through with college. I teach, my husband is a drug counselor at a private prison, and we could never afford to send 3 kids to school now.
and the business climate will not be favorable for very long when we don’t have an educated workforce – there are no construction jobs, and high-paying service industries want people who can read.
if we continue to listen to Craddick and his ilk we will end up with an illiterate workforce, and Texas will look like Ghana: literacy rate=58%, GDP per capita $1400.
Reply »
Dunnam's Fork says:
If Shapleigh had any moral courage, he wouldn’t just throw rocks at the other side of the Capitol, the center office and the White House… He would include the senate presiding officer, Dewhurst, who has been lt gov as long as Craddick has been speaker. Dewhurst may be more moderate, but he rolled when the going got tough.
Plus dewhurst thinks you should only pay the business tax when you make a profit…so like shapleigh he supports an income tax.
Reply »
red lady says:
Shapleigh is still living in the 80’s. Get him a nursing home. Texas is in better shape right now than 90% of the US. We can thank conservatives for that.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
November 24th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
No, I think you can thank the price of oil until a few months ago and the fact that conservatives don’t invest when times are good so when times are bad you don’t have far to fall.
I’m sure that many in that other 90% of the U.S. would not trade us for our schools, universities, high school drop rates, uninsured children, highways,etc……
Republicans have controlled Texas for more than a decade now – maybe its time for a change.
Reply »
Tellnitlikeitis Reply:
November 24th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Red Lady….this hard-core independent thinks you are way off base.
Just wait until dropping oil prices catches up with Texas.
And the future looks dim when you consider that a third of all Texas kids do not graduate from high school.
If you want to see the future of Texas…look at the projections of former state demographer Steve Murdock.
Within 30 years, the annual household income in Texas will be about $6,500 less than it was in 2000. That number is not inflation adjusted, so the actual number will be much worse.
Today’s leaders are doing absolutely nothing – because it’s easier to ignore the problem that is still some years away.
Water?
None of your leaders are making the investments necessary in water, roads and education to make this place a better for future Texans.
Their only focus is to keep taxes low today. That might win you an election next year, but this place will turn pretty grim without investments.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
November 25th, 2008 at 3:47 am
I think we can thank the price of oil and gas over the past several years for that, and those days are gone.
Reply »
smallbusines says:
Let’s see … been a conservative Republican all my life… start a small business … I am taxed on gross income … don’t have a profit…I have to pay. This is the way my property taxes are slated to be decresased? Well the gameplan sucked.
I have more in common now with the other party. In bad times,the money that is leaving my pocket does not disappear. A recent t.v. piece stated that the mega-yacht builders cannot keep up with demand. What is wrong with this picture?
Reply »
Phillip Martin says:
For every one dollar the state invests in higher education the citizens of Texas get five dollars in return.
What’s the debate?
Reply »
anonymous1 says:
red lady’s approach is correct. she wrote texas is better off NOW. and when the drop in oil prices “catches up”, it will still be better off, relative to the rest of the country.
the better question is, if texas is in such a bad state of affairs, why will 25 million more people move here? can’t they read?
Reply »
Anonymous says:
“For every one dollar the state invests in higher education the citizens of Texas get five dollars in return.”
that is absolute nonsense… Goodness there is a lot of cool aid drinking going on. The state does not invest money, it spends money it has confiscated from people who have earned it. Education cost what it cost… the question is do we want the people who will benefit from the education to be the one who pays for it OR do we want EVERYONE pay to help increase an individual’s earning potential. That way in 20 years the state can say we paid for your education and you would be only making 30% of what you are making now so we feel entitled to 70% of the money you make so we can make sure others have the same opportunities as you…
More government = more power for a few…
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
November 25th, 2008 at 9:06 am
Good Lord, this is the logic that gets us the graduation and degree attainment rates we have today.
Education does increase personal income, both present and future, but don’t you think there are positive benefits for the rest of society? Higher pay for individuals means more state personal income which means economic growth – hence the return on investment of 5 to 1. Fairly basic economic theory to grow the pie instead of rationing the pieces.
Students in higher education do pay a share of their education now and because of tuition deregulation they pay and even larger share. If the cost of education were only to be a user fee then only the wealthy would be able to attend. Talk about a prescription for state decline.
Reply »
cow droppings says:
Tellnitblahblahblah,
It was Governor Perry who led the fight at the end of the last session to ensure there was a water bill with more than a dozen reservoir sites, helping to protect Texas’ water future from wild-eyed liberal bureaucrats in Washington who would declare those sites federal land and totally screw our water availability for generations to come.
Some East Texas Democrats tried to stop it in the House, like Frost, siding with the libs.
Perry is also the one who has pushed for major desalination projects to greatly increase the future water supply.
Your pabulum is pure bull.
Reply »
Tellnitlikeitis Reply:
November 25th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Cow Dropping….you’re stepping into it.
Look, you can designate all the resorvoirs you want and pass as many landmark water bills as you want….
But.
There’s never been a willingness to pay for it. So all you have is a paper plan. Remember a water bill several sessions back that included a tax on bottled water to help pay for it?
This group will not invest in a real water plan.
Reply »
John Robert BEHRMAN says:
Sen. Shapleigh and Paul Burka point their fingers in different directions, but both are (a) in the tub, while (b) peering over it.
In the tub, the most signficant facts are that the Speaker is propped-up by Democrats and the only organized opposition to the Lt. Governor comes from Dan Patrick. So, what we have in the tub is a tradition of coalition government that goes back to 1874.
Looking out of the tub, what does one see?
First, from Austin, there would appear to be a GOP redoubt in what plots out on the map as “Greater Appalachia”, including the Brazos River Valley and points east of that in Texas.
Second, even from Austin one can see quite a bit more political and cultural diversity, almost four more states’ worth.
That calls for (a) a disciplined and competitive, rather than collaborative, Democratic Party of Texas with (b) a popular and progressive platform. Those are needed to develop and exploit the latent majority in this state one sees emerging in Virginia, probably even North Carolina and Tennessee.
There is still enough oil & gas here to smooth the transition from a cheap-labor extractive to a robust industrial economy. We could be the world leader in a variety of “green” technologies as distinct from land-speculation and paper-hanging.
That will take uniform and efficient taxation as well as sound financial regulation, economic planning, and technical standards. None of those are alien to Texas. We already have the constitution for it, though it is archaic and honored in the breach. We have those traditions, though few know what “The Eyes of Texas” was originally all about. We, even have vestigial but usable organs for exiting the Jim Crow system of Low and High Whig government in the State Supreme Court, the Regents of the University of Texas, and the Railroad Commission, although they are controlled by and effective conceded to the GOP by the legislative hangers-on who run the TDP/LSP in Austin.
Reply »
texun Reply:
November 26th, 2008 at 9:18 am
A cogent argument! I wish that I could be at all hopeful that we will see “a disciplined and competitive” Democratic party. The time-servers and place-holders run the show much as their counterparts in the Republican party did before the “Eisenhower revolution” of 1952. The only encouraging sign of late is a relatively forceful attempt to help Bell win in his run-off. Perhaps the good ol’ boys forgot to hit the snooze alarm.
Reply »
cow droppings says:
no that is bull. If those sites were not designated, the threat of federal bureaucrats taking over that land was real, and it has happened in some instances. We haven’t built a reservoir in fifty years in Texas, and the last time I checked that included 37 years of Democrat rule.
The financing is never easy for these types of deals regardless of who is leading, but because of Perry the likelihood of reservoirs actually being built has gone up greatly by protecting the land.
And, money is being spent on desal pilot projects. at Perry’s urging as part of the water plan he put forward
Reply »
cynical optimist Reply:
November 25th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
@cow manure
50 years? No reservoirs since 1958? Maybe you should check that while you’re checking the years of D rule. I can name Ivie, Roberts, and Cooper quickly, then Richland Chambers, Gibbons Creek, and others with some thought just off the top of my head.
Reply »
Jeff Crosby says:
If Rick Perry is building reservoirs, how come we haven’t heard about toll lakes? Surely there’s some foreign company willing to rake in fees for managing them.
Reply »
cow droppings says:
you hate foreign companies investing in America? I suppose you oppose toyota creating jobs in San Antonio? Do you drink only Texas wine at the Star Bar? Perhaps when you smoke outside your office, you talk on an American-made cell phone?
Wake up Democrat xenophobes: we live in a global economy. If a foreign company offers a better product or makes a better car, why should we subsidize American-made crap as an alternative?
Reply »
Tellnitlikeitis Reply:
November 25th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
He probably objects to sending billions and billions and more billions of Texas money to shareholders in a foreign country – instead of keeping that money here and reinvesting those dollars into more roads and highways.
Reply »
cow droppings says:
so, should I refuse to buy Toyota because Japanese shareholders will make money…or Ericsson phones because those greedy Finns will make money?
Let’s go to your example, CINTRA. A Spanish company, which subs with a Texas construction company (gosh, I wonder how many Texans will be employed by their road project, and how much money that will put into the Texas economy?) puts up billions of dollars up front to build roads now. If they, or a company from America or Australia or you name it don’t put the money up front, when will the road be built?
Answer: not for 25 years, if ever. So, they build it in today’s dollars, not what it will cost in 25 years — construction inflation is one of the highest rates of any commodity — and for their risk, they get no reward? Hate capitalism much?
But guess what, the money CINTRA makes over 50 years pales in comparison to the billions more that will be saved by buying the road with cheaper materials 25 years or earlier.
Bottom line: Texans get needed roads sooner, Texas company employs thousands of Texans on the project, and the roads end up costing Texas drivers less while the company putting up the risk makes money.
What argument do you have left? Good, old-fashioned fear-mongering xenophobia. Pat Buchanan would be proud of you.
Reply »
Tellnitlikeitis Reply:
November 25th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Transit or tollway authorities could build the same toll roads, hire a zillion Texans to build them; the only difference is that toll revenue would be used to pay off the bonds and to finance additonal projects.
Your plan would send hundreds of billions of toll revenue to out-of-state shareholders. That’s the big difference.
And it’s a losing plan. Texans won’t stand for it. Ask Lois Kolkhorst about your idea. She will set you straight….lickitdy split.
Reply »
B/CS Observer says:
Which would you rather have two world class universities or a bunch of mediocre universities?
A bunch of mediocrity is what we are going to get if we aren’t careful.
The state doe not fund higher ed so weak small towns with no industry and no future can try and bootstrap themseves into the 21st century on the back of Texas taxpayers and at the cost of more productive efforts at major universities.
Look at UH- Victoria or A&M-San Antonio.
Located in smaller town with dim future prospects: check
Lacks enough local population to justify existence as a 4 year school: check
Has leadership with eyes bigger than their stomach: check
Is going to try and needlessly duplicate education efforts being done less than 100 miles away by more prestigious schools: check
Is seen by local leaders as a jobs program: check
That sounds like a blueprint to education excellence to me!!!
Medical schools in every city of 50,000 or more!!!
Law schools in every city of 100,000 or more!!!
The future is Mediocre!!!
Reply »
B/CS Observer Reply:
November 25th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
I meant to have a seperate checklist for A&M San Antonio.
San Antonio has a bright future and planty of students, but the other checkpoints hold true and you can add one-
Used as pork to placate important legislators: check
Reply »
Jeff Crosby says:
Lighten up droppings; it’s called a joke, son. And yes, I agree with Tellnitlikeitis regarding toll roads (or toll lakes).
Reply »
texun says:
BC/S has a point: how many “flag ship” universities does Texas really need? At the moment, consensus is that it has three: UY, TAMU, and Rice. There are many universities that want enhanced funding to join that list: UTSA, UT-Arlington, UTEP, Tech, North Texas, UTD, UH. Now back to the question: how many should Texas have? As many as California? As Illinois (3), As NC (2), AS NJ (1), As MN (1), as WI (1), as Michigan (2), and so on. The answer is that “how many?” is the wrong question. There is no magic number. The standard should be the measured excellence that the existing flag ship schools have: research $s, nationally-internationally recognized programs and scholars, etc.
Unless the candidate institutions have developed distinctive programs, they shouldn’t have flag ship funding. As a practical matter, it is easier to find non-Texas taxpayer dollars for the institutions that are already recognized.
The most reliable way to enhance the state’s national and international standing in higher education is to improve the funding of the current flag ship schools, notably UT and TAMU. (Rice does pretty well looking after itself.)
The claim that northern Texas, western Texas, and southern Texas must have flagship schools doesn’t hold water: in Illinois the U of I, U of Chi and Northwestern are all in the upper half of the state, to no apparent detriment. BTW, I’m not employed by either UT or TAMU.
Reply »