The Cold War
The House budget debate had a lot in common with the Cold War. The two sides came to the battlefield fully armed, but they engaged in frequent diplomacy that avoided a nuclear conflagration. Jessica Farrar, for the Democratic caucus, and various Republicans, Phil King among them, held a summit on reproductive issues–strategies to prevent abortion, for the R’s, and family planning funds, for the D’s, both of which were under attack from the other side–and agreed to total disarmament. All proposed amendments were moved to Article 11, where dreams go to die. Nothing came to a vote.
All this peace and harmony slowed down the House’s already glacial pace. Motions to table amendments were rare. Instead, the chair would intone, “The amendment is withdrawn,” and the glacier would grind to a halt while members looked for a way to fix the problem. For example, Mark Strama had an early amendment to state the intent of the Legislature that not less than 70% of the research superiority grants from the Emerging Technology Fund should be for clean energy research and development. Otto didn’t agree with stating an exact percentage, and everything stopped while they worked out agreeable language.
Occasionally an amendment would spur the ideologues into action. Martinez-Fischer had an amendment to encourage the Employees Retirement System to hire more minority fund raisers. Christian, the chair of the Conservative Coalition, jumped into the fray: What is a minority? Do you know the performance of minority fund managers? Give me a fund where a minority fund manager has performed well. Phillips followed with an amendment to the amendment that would have required fund managers to be chosen on the basis of experience, skill, education, and demonstrated success. Point of order! Sustained.
The most dreaded words of the debate were: “Rule 8, Section 4″–the grounds for a point of order that an amendment was attempting to make law in an appropriations bill, in contradiction to the text of the rule: “General law may not be changed by the provision in an appropriations bill.” This was the graveyard of many an amendment, including Berman’s immigration amendments. Sometimes, as in the case of Christian’s proposal to remove all funding for the Public Integrity Unit and give the authority to the attorney general, the amendment was quietly withdrawn. This was clearly the worst public policy in the entire debate, and I wonder if Abbott planted the suggestion. I wouldn’t be surprised if more amendments weren’t killed on points of order this year than last, but nobody seemed to mind, except Phillips, who made a personal privilege speech after Martinez-Fischer killed his attempt to tack on a contingent teacher pay raise.
Sylvester Turner has not played a prominent role this session, which is the session’s loss, but he emerged to confront Debbie Riddle over criminal justice funding. Riddle’s subcommittee had undone much of the work Turner had accomplished in the area of probation, and Turner had several amendments to restore the funding that she had reallocated. It was not a fair fight. The other criminal justice heavyweights, Madden and McReynolds, supported Turner, as did Pitts, who accepted one of Turner’s amendments even as Riddle was fighting it.
The big loser of the debate was clearly Rick Perry. Numerous amendments sought to shift funding from the Enterprise Fund. Pitts had shredded the credibility of the governor’s office with his questioning of staffers regarding the shell game of fund-shifting on the $50 million research grant to Texas A&M, and Perry had no support on the floor, even from his own party. Fresh in members’ minds was the embarrassment Perry had inflicted on the state with his talk of secession. The smartest move of the night was the Republicans’ decision not to engage with the Democrats by leaping to Perry’s defense. That is exactly what the Democrats wanted them to do.
Most of the attacks on the governor’s funding came from Democrats, most notably caucus chair Farrer, but Republican John Davis shifted $18.7 million for mental health services away from the governor. The Dallas Morning News reported that the amendments removed 96% of the funding for the governor’s office. GOP caucus chair Larry Taylor calmly noted that the governor’s office would be fully funded by the conference committee–and it will be. There was no Cuban Missile Crisis in this Cold War.
Most floor amendments do not survive to be included in the final budget. The two most significant survivors of the 2007 session were Heflin’s rider prohibiting a voucher program and a portion of Noriega’s teacher pay raise. Heflin passed his voucher prohibition again this year. Another amendment that has a chance to survive is Villareal’s restructuring of teacher incentive pay. This was another defeat for the governor, because the incentive pay would no longer flow through the Texas Education Agency, which the governor controls, but instead would flow through the school finance formulas to school district. This is another stake through the heart of high-stakes testing, because incentive pay currently is based on the performance of students on standardized tests. The vote was 146-0.
If Perry was the big loser in the budget debate (and the defeat was only temporary), then Straus and the insurgents who thrust him into the speakership were the big winners–not so much because of the 149-0 vote on second reading but because the House functioned as the former insurgents had envisioned. Members worked with other members across party lines, and talent and intelligence prevailed in the debate. There was no atmosphere of tension in the chamber. The debate certainly didn’t hurt Straus’s chances of being reelected as speaker, but I don’t know whether it helped. There is still no Straus “team” out there, especially among Republicans. As for the 149-0 vote, don’t put too much stock in that. It represents more of an affirmtion of the process than the result. The real test will come on the vote to adopt the conference committee report. I think a lot of Republicans will want to vote against the budget because of the increase in state spending and because of the liberal use of federal stimulus funds. Fiscal issues are going to be front and center in the 2010 Republican primary, and Perry may decide to raise the stakes by vetoing the budget. For the moment, though, the winner of the Cold War was clearly Joe Straus.
Tagged: appropriations bill, budget, jessica farrar, phil king, sylvester turner, Texas house.
cow droppings says:
ideology as defined by websters has the following definitions:
1: visionary theorizing
2 a: a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture b: a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture c: the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program
My question is: when did adhering to a vision or a sociopolitical program become a dirty thing?
Perhaps one’s ideology is wrong, but the fact that one adheres to an ideology (which you seem to regularly impugn, pitting ideology against practicality) is not in of itself wrong.
Don’t pragmatists have an ideology?
You seem to make adhering to an ideology wrong, instead of adhering to the wrong ideology.
It seems you seek to make dirty the word ideology like some have the word “rhetoric.”
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
April 19th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
Everyone has ideological points of reference. Not everyone becomes trapped in an ideological straitjacket. When a politician becomes a prisoner of his or her ideology to the point that he cannot agree with an action that violates it, ideology becomes, in your words, a “dirty” thing. I would say “dangerous.”
Reply »
Anonymous says:
I think votes to remove all but $800K from the governor’s office not only borders on the unconstitutional — because it erodes separation of powers — but diminishes the house and not the governor.
Further, Davis performed a mercy killing — simply ending the debate of endless amendments taking from the gov’s budget so sober-minded members could move on to actual issues.
But I guess the folks who offered these amendments were okay in doing so because they are not ideologues.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
April 19th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
I do not agree with the efforts to eviscerate the governor’s budget. The governor may not be much of a leader, but he is the governor, and the position deserves respect. I thought that most of these amendments were grandstanding. The only thing that made it palatable is that lawmakers in both parties were expressing their displeasure at the governor’s embarrassing remarks about secession. Most, if not all, of the funding will be restored. I do think that the conference committee report should require the governor to publish an annual report of the funds’ activities, as recommended by the LBB.
Reply »
I Play Defense Reply:
April 20th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Some people can’t recognize defense when it’s right in front of them. Taking her initial amendmendment and taking the rest of the Governor’s budget simply cut off all the amendments she had in Article II to take the rest of the Governor’s budget, and it avoided all those votes. It was no message to the Governor, it was playing the game as the Democrats taught us. Why is this so hard to understand.
Reply »
James says:
The silliness with the governor’s office amendments is highlighted by one other thing that seems to have been left out of the discussion so far: the governor’s veto power.
Does anyone with a rational mind think this governor is going to approve a budget that wholly strips the budget of their office?
So long as Article IV, Section 14 of the Texas Constitution remains in effect, this just ain’t gonna happen.
This was simply a waste of everyone’s time on the floor and it will survive two seconds in conference.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
April 19th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
To readers:
Article IV, Section 14, empowers the governor to veto bills.
Reply »
Dr. Strangelove says:
Ditch the Cold War analogy and forget the “teams”. Straus is more like the blind watchmaker, and that is a good thing.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
The House response to Perry’s talk of “succeeding” from the United States isn’t nearly as silly as the behavior that provoked it. The House sent a clear statement, and even the House Rs don’t want to go where he’s trying to “lead.”
Burka’s right on this one — “The real test will come on the vote to adopt the conference committee report.”
Reply »
Bill Rawls says:
Well most of the amendments won’t make it into the final bill, but I tend to agree that this was a victory for Straus on several levels. Here are the lessons (as I see them) from his victory:
1) Do the budget on a Friday fairly late in session, do it all on one day and get them good and damn tired. Between 2-5am they’ll vote to adopt anything to go home. That was the perfect time to punish Perry for his UI vote.
2) Stall all significant legislation up in committee until the budget is passed. The more bills you have to potentially kill, the better behaved everyone will be.
3) Foster the sense of cooperation and get as many people to work together as you can. When in doubt, defer to Democrats, as on stopping incentive pay and killing the enterprise fund.
In my mind, very intense and passionate debate is the hallmark of a vibrant democracy, but that debate (under Craddick) was messy and unorganized bickering. I think Bullock gained legendary status by having 31-0 votes on everything. All the politics was worked out in his office.
Some may argue that this backroom hugfest makes for better policymaking, but I am doubtful. I was a believer in the Dallas Morning News shining a light on making all votes public and recorded — but if all the debate is now in Phil King or Jim Dunnam’s office — how is the public to know how your lawmakers stand for? How are we going to hold the Republicans accountable?
Or is it just enough that you stand for a clean process? i suspect the debate on Voter ID, on sunset issues, on other issues may show that we still want and needs debate to happen in the sunshine.
I congratulate Straus on his victory, but I think government in the sunshine took a hit in his effort to achieve his vote.
Reply »
Phillip Martin Reply:
April 20th, 2009 at 8:43 am
1) In 2007, the budget debate happened on Friday and went until 4am. It happened a couple weeks earlier — March 30 — but that strategy isn’t something magical or new to Straus.
2) It’s not so much an issue of “stalling” legislation. It’s hard to pass large legislation if you don’t know if the money will be there or not. For example, the school finance stuff this year needed the budget to go first.
3) “Defer to Democrats.” This also happened last year, especially once you got past Article III. There was no fight on CHIP amendments this year, and the Republicans were freed from Craddick’s strong-arm to vote how they want (which in many ways will be in favor of solid public policy that D’s put forward with amendments). It’s not “deferring” — it’s just finally letting everyone vote w/o a guillotine floating above their heads.
I think you’re giving too much credit to Straus. I agree more with the idea that it’s a win for the insurgents, who are getting to run the chamber the way they want — with free will. And there’s nothing to suggest that a Democrat wouldn’t operate the House the same way in two years.
No, I think Straus so far hasn’t really done anything other than stay out of people’s way. That’s what he was elected to do, but there’s never really been a time where we’ve seen him do anything. How he handles the voter ID and sunset bills may matter (or who he appoints to Conference Committee), but so far he’s an empty chair. Which is just what the majority of House members wanted…
Reply »
synonymous says:
Bill Rawls, every single vote on the floor was public before DMN got involved. If a member doesn’t have a “no” vote recorded in the Journal, either by record vote or by having printed “J. Doe recorded voting no,” then they voted yes. You can hold them to every single motion that passes on a voice vote. Unless they recorded no, they’re for it.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
It’s a loss that Sly Turner wasn’t involved????? Please, Paul, Sly is an utter embarrasment and richly deserves his time in the woodshed due to his consorting with Craddick.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
April 19th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
Move on, anonymous. Get past Craddick. Turner is a great legislator. He knows the issues, he knows how to frame an argument, he knows how to move the House. There are a very small number of members who you don’t want to see at the microphone, back or front, against you: Chisum, Dunnam, Eiland, Geren, Smithee, Turner. Yes, Turner kept Craddick in power. But this enabled him to extract concessions from Craddick that the mainstream Democrats could not. Last session Turner organized the Craddick D’s and made public their list of priorities. Their batting average was very high, although some of their items would have happened anyway. Not the expansion of CHIP, however. Look at Turner this session. He is on the outside, but he whipped Solomons on the rules debate and he ran over Riddle in the criminal justice debate. The people of Texas and the constituents of the Craddick D’s are better off for Turner’s support of Craddick. It’s time to stop keeping score of who was a Craddick D and who wasn’t. And before this session is over Turner is going to play a significant role in the electricity debate. He’s one of the very best members of the Legislature.
Reply »
James says:
Sylvester Turner is a smart member. That makes him valuable, regardless of the party label or past alliances. Even if you are opposing him, the debate is better with a smart member at the microphone.
Look at the 150 on that floor and ask yourself to name the really smart ones. Say, the top 20 or so. Rep. Turner will show up on just about every list.
Whoever is in leadership will realize that it is better to have the smart members inside their circle to some degree. It is simply too dangerous to leave them completely outside it.
Reply »
Harry Doghiney (Democrat) says:
Republican John Davis shifted $18.7 million for mental health services away from the governor
Perry is sorely in need of mental health services, but $18.7 million seems excessive in American dollars. Perhaps in inflated Republic of Texas currency it will be more reasonable.
Reply »
Prince Royal says:
I think this above exchange points out something interesting about the historic legislative operations and partisan memory. In the Texas Legislature, redemption can be found in one session. Memories cannot be long because with only 181 members, you have to work to get things done and everyone tends to play a role. So while it is not forgive and forget, it is forgive and remember.
Conversely, partisan memories (and partisan supporters) are permanent. A sin against the body and you are on the outs. GOP party leaders will never trust Kennedy and the Dem party leaders will never trust Newt (or whoever). But the legislative process is dependent upon compromise. The hyperpartisans are the ones that are insisting upon NEVER doing bidness with the sinners. But like churches, if you don’t allow in sinners, you got no one in the church.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Sylvester Turner can, indeed, give a stemwinder of a speech. He may also be smart (although he would be at the bottom of my 20 list if he showed up at all). I have, however, see very little evidence that these traits have translated into being an effective and competent legislator. That goes way, way beyond giving a speech on the floor.
Reply »
west tex says:
I respect Rep. Turner, but he didn’t help himself with all the public whining about not being on Approps. He knows how it works. He danced with Craddick, and now there’s a new fiddler. There are plenty of other bright folks (and a few dummies) who can handle the approps duties. With his experience and skills, he can still be a force.
Reply »