The next several days of Texas House budget debate may be as much about the culture wars as state spending.

Pre-filed amendments to the three budget-related bills before the House contain limitations on private school vouchers, funding for Planned Parenthood and directives to higher education to fund centers for traditional family values if they provide funding for support centers for gay students. Debate is set to begin Thursday on House Bill 4 to erase a deficit in the current budget and on House Bill 275 to take $3.2 billion out of the state’s so-called rainy day fund. Debate is set for Friday and into the weekend on House Bill 1, a bare bones spending plan for the next two years.

Some of the pre-filed amendments may never be debated because there is a possibility that they are not procedurally proper for an appropriations bill. But they do show state spending is about more than just spending – or in this case cutting.

(more…)

Tagged: abortion, conservative coalition, craig eiland, gay, joaquin castro, Ken Paxton, Planned Parenthood, scott hochberg, state budget, state employees

A mostly mind-numbing day during which Democrats slow-played the local calendar by asking questions for just short of ten minutes on every bill ended with Republicans and Democrats defending their parliamentary maneuvers as being consistent with the rules of the House. Republican caucus chairman Taylor produced a lengthy list of signatures of members objecting to suspending the rules to taking bills up out of order. Their objections expired at 11:59 a.m. on May 23 but was immediately superseded by a similar list of members who made the same objection for May 24. This is trench warfare on the Western Front, 1914: two armies of equal strength facing each other with neither having sufficient armaments to vanquish the other.

Kino Flores tried to get recognized in the nanosecond between the expiration of the first objection and the start of the second in the hope of being able to pass his bill implementing a constitutional amendment granting a homestead amendment to disabled veterans. Eiland, in the chair, explained that he could not recognize Flores because of the Republicans’ objections. Flores accused Eiland of breaking his word, a charge that appeared to be groundless. He also demanded that the names of the members who had objected be read aloud. Eiland said that the names had been placed in the Journal and were available for his inspection. Flores persisted by asking if Drew Darby was on the list. Then Harvey Hilderbran. Eiland would not respond to further inquiries, referring Flores to the Journal. Richard Raymond then defended the Democrats’ action and made a gratuitous reference to the “voter suppression bill.”

The Democrats are in control of the calendar for the moment. They still have 72 hours to go until Tuesday midnight, the point at which Senate bills that have not passed the House on second reading die. But, as I have pointed out in previous posts, the Republicans have the governor’s office and the presiding officer of both houses, and they will control the process if there is a special session.

I also noted the absence of many Democrats from the chubbing. Most of the chubbers over the past two days were male: Castro, England, Gutierrez, Martinez, Miklos, Moody, Turner, Ortiz, Burnam [Note to readers. I removed Vaught's name. He was only at the front mike.] The only women I can recall seeing at the back microphone were Gonzales and Gonzalez Toureilles. The general absence of women and of talented younger members made me wonder whether the rank and file of the Democratic caucus was in agreement with the strategic decisions their leaders were making.

The only uplifting moment in the long day came at the very end of the session, from Randy Weber. As the House prepared to adjourn for the evening, he went to the back microphone with a parliamentary inquiry: “Is the chair [Eiland] aware that he is doing a great job?”

Tagged: craig eiland, drew darby, harvey hilderbran, kino flores, larry taylor, randy weber, richard raymond

Eiland and Truitt just engaged in a major debate over Teacher Retirement System bill that expanded the types of companies eligible to offer 403(b) retirement accounts to certify with the Teacher Retirement System of Texas (TRS). Eiland offered an amendment sought by the Houston Independent School District. Truitt, aided by Christian, fought it vigorously. I will readily admit that I couldn’t follow a word of it, nor could I detect any ideological reason why the head of the Conservative Coalition would be involved in the debate. So why am I writing about it? Because this was obviously an issue that was important enough to stir the passions, but no one called for a record vote on Truitt’s motion to table. Straus called for a division vote. There is only one reason for a division vote, and that is to protect members from public scrutiny. I’m all for the new era of cooperation, but letting members hide behind division votes on an issue that must have been important (or else why was Christian banging on the table and Truitt railing at Eiland?) is collusion rather than cooperation. Texas teachers are entitled to know how their representatives voted on this issue. The House has been backsliding into division votes for the last couple of weeks. No one is accountable for his or her votes on important amendments.

This is why I don’t like the constitutional amendment requiring third readings to be a mandatory record vote. Third reading is perfunctory. Second reading is the real test, and often the crucial vote is a second reading amendment, as it was here. Every vote should be a record vote.

Tagged: craig eiland, teacher retirement system, TRS, vicki truitt, wayne christian

The Texas Public Policy Foundation hosted a debate last week on the subject of whether Texas should accept the stimulus funds for unemployment insurance. The audio is available on the TPPF web site here. The participants were Republicans Kelly Hancock and Dan Gattis and Democrat Mark Strama. Craig Eiland, who was originally scheduled to participate, had a conflict. I am going to summarize the arguments below:

Hancock

I heard people saying that the way to fix this is to add more people to our system, because we’re paying out faster than we’re bringing in [money]. This didn’t sound right, that we need to add people to our rolls while we’re paying out money in a fund that is not keeping up with the payments that we’re paying out today, because we’ll get a lump sum of money up front. I look at this as what’s best for Texas long-term instead of a short-term kind of mentality.

If you look in a very short-term perspective, these funds are extremely beneficial to us. My wife and I started a new business, a farm and ranch store, it’s been successful. Our business is up significantly. With our business, I had to borrow money up front so I could make more money in the end. The unemployment insurance money actually does the opposite. Rather than increase the revenue side long-term, it increases the expense side long-term. It does increase the revenue side short-term.

The impact of business is insignificant except when you draw the lines [Hancock and Strama both used slides that were provided by the Workforce Commission, although they did not have the same data] out to infinity and beyond.

(more…)

Tagged: craig eiland, dan gattis, federal stimulus package, Kelly Hancock, mark strama, texas public policy foundation, unemployment

A renowned medical facilities consultant has recommended to the UT Board of Regents that UTMB’s inpatient hospital in Galveston—which was hit hard by Hurricane Ike— be mostly relocated to League City where it would be both easier to rebuild and more financially viable.

Under this proposal, one of three options presented to the regents by Kurt Salmon Associates, the only inpatient facility that would remain on the island would serve inmates from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. “This option provides the best opportunity for UTMB to achieve greater financial self-sufficiency and is the most capital efficient,” the report advised.

The report noted that, even before the devastation caused by Ike, UTMB required “high levels of extramural support” to finance large operating losses due its declining base of paying patients. The island location does not invite use by insured Houstonians, the report noted.  Given Galveston’s declining—and poor—population,  UTMB now serves 60 percent Medicaid and uninsured patients, guaranteeing operating losses in the $15 million to $40 million per month range.

The report is significant because of its subtext:  The rumored political support to create a medical school in Austin, which would be feasible only if Galveston’s was shuttered. Last month, Senate Finance Chair Steve Ogden complained  to Texas Monthly that the UT regents were using the hurricane as an excuse to do what they had already planned: to shut down the school.

Perhaps not surprisingly,  Galveston’s own Craig Eiland believes the Salmon report is based on flawed assumptions: It fails to take into account $600 million available though FEMA for reconstruction, as well as $20 to $30 million provided annually by the local Sealy & Smith Foundation.

Eiland’s big complaint, however, is that UTMB draws some $90 million a year from the federal government for treating the indigent—which is swept into state General Revenue. He spent most of last session trying to reverse that policy, to no avail. Ironically, the Salmon report cautions the regents from assuming national health care reform would help UTMB financially since reform would be accompanied in a loss of federal funds “realized by the State of Texas and generated by UTMB.” (It should be noted that UTMB has a total annual budget of $1.5 billion.)

Eiland has proposed that Galveston establish a hospital district , but that would likely  generate a small sum—about $15 million annually.  But he notes other reasons for the state to continue supporting UTMB on the island, mainly, its uninsured sick people will become a burden to other institutions in the Houston metro region. “UTMB actually wants them and it can provide research and medical education and training,” he said.

Who gets to decide UTMB’s future? Eiland hopes that decision will occur in a two-step process:  first, secure funding to guarantee its survival, and then decide whether to keep it on the island or “aggressively expand” on the mainland—a scenario which likely would draw fire from Houston medical institutions wary of new competition.

Just one more issue to keep UT regents in a now-familiar position this session: the hot seat.

Tagged: austin medical school, craig eiland, galveston, hurricane ike, kurt salmon associates, sealy & smith foundation, Steve Ogden, ut board of regents, utmb

The first day of a legislative session always has the festive atmosphere of a high school reunion, but this one had something extra. It was also Bastille Day—the moment that the masses stormed the battlements and freed the prisoners. I have never seen so many members look so happy. Charlie Geren was beaming, ear to ear. So was Tommy Merritt. And Brian Eppstein in the gallery. Even the reserved Brian McCall allowed himself a grin. I ran into them in the west hallway. Pete Gallego and Nelda Laney were there too.

The Straus speakership represents an attempted restoration of the old order—the Laney years—in which the House was run by the bipartisan moderate center and the fringes on the left and right were reduced to grumbling about the injustice of it all. This model is the opposite of the one employed by Tom Craddick, which was based on partisanship and ideology. Excluded from the governing coalition were most of the Democrats and the ABC Republicans. From the moment that Geren and Craig Eiland walked to the front microphone together to present the first resolution to the last line of Straus’s acceptance speech—”Let there be no walls in this House”—the symbolism of the occasion was designed to make the point that the bad old days are over. It seemed to me that just as the physical restoration of the chamber was achieved in the 1990s, the insurgents want to achieve a mental restoration of the old days as well.

The question I want to pose is whether the Craddick model or the Pete Laney model is more likely to be the way of the future. I much prefer the Laney model, and I hated the Craddick model, because it was built on the raw exercise of political power, at the expense of the independence of the members, but I believe that there will be more Craddicks than Laneys in the House’s future. Partisanship is the easiest and most effective organizing principle. Craddick used it quite effectively for two and a half sessions. His speakership failed not because the model was flawed but because the speaker was flawed. If he had shared power with his committee chairs, if he had utilized floor leaders who had a stake in his success, if he had resisted the urge to claim absolute power for himself, if he had not tried to control everything members did, including their campaigns, Tom Craddick could have led the House for as long as he wanted to. The most damning thing I heard Republicans say about him, and they said it often, was: “He thinks we are here to serve him, not that he is here to serve us.”

Still, it wasn’t just poor leadership that caused Craddick’s downfall. It was the general malaise of the Republican party that was beginning even as Craddick assumed power in 2003. It was the unpopularity of George W. Bush nationwide, the low regard for the Perry-Dewhurst- Craddick leadership team in Texas, and the collapse of the Republican party in 2006 to 2008. If the House is bipartisan today, it is fundamentally because the Democrats have 74 seats, and enough members realized that Craddick’s governing style could not possibly work in a 76-74 House. This leadership is bipartisan because the numbers are bipartisan. If the numbers change in the future to reflect a partisan advantage, the leadership style will change with it. This is inevitable in a two-party system. But for now the insurgency has become the restoration. We’ll see how long it can last.

Tagged: 81st texas legislative session, Charlie Geren, craig eiland, Joe Straus, pete laney, tommy merritt

Everyone wants to attend Craddick’s funeral, but the corpse is still breathing—barely. One more nail in the awaiting coffin: The Democrats  published their names. It’s vital, as January 13 approaches, that the insurgents do everything possible to bolster their credibility, and the best way to do that was lay out the names. The most important thing about this list is that the D’s won over the five members whom I had previously identified as the most likely new recruits for Craddick: Heflin, Marquez, Olivo, Quintanilla, and Rios Ybarra. The pool of members from which Craddick can plausibly seek votes has shrunk. The bad news for the insurgents is that the Democratic leadership has not been able to win over any of the Craddick D’s. Why should they commit to either side now? Sylvester Turner is playing his cards well. At the crucial moment, he may be the kingmaker.

But events may have overtaken the Democrat-ABC coalition that has 75 votes against Craddick. Gattis’s candidacy for speaker provides members with a chance to realign in coalitions FOR someone instead of merely against. Suddenly the timing is off for the ABCs. Their announcement of a candidate won’t come until the end of the week, and in the meantime Gattis can be adding to his list of supporters, currently reported to be three (Kolkhorst, Hamilton, Harless).

Those who have said that Gattis’s announcement gives the insurgents 76 votes against Craddick are wrong. Gattis is not an ABC. He is a mainstream Republican. I would bet a hundred bucks that he is not committed to be the 76th vote.

Is it too late for Gattis? (or Smithee, who says he will decide in the next 48 hours?) Not necessarily. I think there is a constituency out there for a coalition of the uncommitted–the members on both sides of the aisle who make the process work and know that Craddick has lost the ability to govern. It’s the R’s and D’s who aren’t comfortable with the current leadership of their parties and want to move on beyond Craddick. It’s Kolkhorst and Hamilton, Branch and Madden, Anchia and Eiland, Hochberg and Strama. Some will view Gattis as a stalking horse for Craddick. I don’t believe it. Nobody who went to stand at the back microphone on the day of the local calendar rebellion is going to go back to the House as it was. That was the crossing of the Rubicon.

But it’s risky. It means asking the insurgents to give up the hand they hold and reshuffle the deck. Will the Democrats remain in their coalition with the ABCs, or will some of them follow Gattis? What about the ABCs? Will they continue to stick together, or will some break away? A redeal could mean new opportunities for Craddick. But I think he’s out of opportunities. He’s drawing to deuces now. The only question left is whether he plays out a losing hand—or folds.

Tagged: abc's, craig eiland, dan branch, dan gattis, hamilton, harless, Heflin, john smithee, kolkhorst, mark strama, Marquez, Olivo, Quintanilla, rafael anchia, Rios Ybarra, scott hochberg, speaker's race, sylvester turner, tom craddick

Honorably Mentioned: Burt Solomons, Jim Keffer, Craig Eiland, Brian McCall, Rafael Anchia, Charlie Geren, Warren Chisum, Phil King, and Rob Junell (naturally). If you do not see your name on the list, you have given us no reason to talk about you.

(Go watch it on our homepage so I don’t have to take your abuse by posting it here. And, no, I’m not wearing a white long-sleeved shirt. Those are my real alabaster arms.)

Tagged: Brian McCall, burt solomons, Charlie Geren, craig eiland, jim keffer, phil king, rafael anchia, rob junell, speaker's race, sylvester turner