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

If the purpose of the House budget bill was Shock-and-Awe, it achieved maximum success: House Democrats wasted no time identifying the many, many Doomsday scenarios that would result if state programs are cut to fit available revenue.

No room for grandma at the nursing home. No financial aid for worthy aspiring college students. No more grants for full-day pre-kindergarten.

All are dramatic, with obvious social implications. It’s nearly impossible to catalogue all of the lasting and seismic shifts that would reverberate through the state if this document became the real budget. At the press conference held by House Democrats, Reps. Scott Hochberg and Sylvester Turner highlighted one: how cuts to the Foundation School Program could accelerating the closure of neighborhood schools.

Neighborhood schools are the heart and soul of Texas communities. They are where neighbors actually meet and form life-long friendships. Schools offer a venue for people of all economic levels, racial backgrounds and political leanings to come together for a shared goal: their kids’ education. It’s where you meet your children’s friends and their parents.

People form deep, emotional attachments to their schools. It’s impossible to underestimate the visceral reaction that will occur across Texas when the PTA notices appear in the backpacks warning of a school closure. If the budget shortfall is Texas’ immoveable object, it’s about to meet the unstoppable force of parental wrath.

Says Hochberg:  “There is no thing more difficult, nothing that produces more parental, more community resistance, than closing schools.” And yet, efficiency studies point to campus size as the obvious way to save money.

“It costs more to run neighborhood schools,” Hochberg noted. If the state really does reduce state funding to local schools by 23 percent – as the initial proposal does – districts will be looking everywhere to save money, and school closures, Hochberg noted, “are a likely outcome.”

It’s happening already in multiple school districts – including Austin – where parents have turned out in droves to protest. According to Dominic Giarratani of the Texas Association of School Boards, “it’s an option that all large districts are going to have to look into” if the base bill is adopted. (Hochberg doesn’t limit the impact to large districts – he believes there will be pressure on rural districts to consolidate.)

Sylvester Turner says he met with Aldine school board members in December and was told their current fiscal situation, plus the uncertainty caused by the state’s budget shortfall, had prompted them to end magnet programs, increase class size and contemplate closing or consolidating schools. Officials at the Houston Independent School District told him they had identified 66 campuses for possible closure or consolidation for the same reason.

Some of the closings might be smart: if enrollment has plummeted in a neighborhood, the district may not be able to justify the expense of operating a campus. Still, closing schools will likely also increase class size, prompt teacher lay-offs and social upheaval. “It’s not going to be well-received by the parents or the students themselves,” said Turner.

But he added that voters in the Aldine district last spring rejected a bond proposal, demonstrating that state officials cannot depend on the willingness of local taxpayers to pick up the tab that the state declines to pay. “That is not a guarantee by any stretch of the imagination.”

He faults television commercials from the fall governor’s race that assured the electorate “that everything in Texas is fine. That’s the psyche.”

When the reality sets in that “no new taxes” means closed schools, laid-off teachers and no magnet programs, “it’s going to hit the fan,” Turner predicted.

Is it too early to start hyperventilating over a bill that is, by all accounts, a “starting point?”  A lot of people believe the legislative leadership hopes to build momentum – at the very least for tapping the Rainy Day Fund – by issuing a budget proposal that no one really wants to support.

Said Turner: “I don’t want to be guilty of hyperbole, but we have to be honest with taxpayers and let them decide. But let’s not lull them into the belief that everything is okay.”

If parents understand the impact on their local schools, will it change the political debate? Before I left the Capitol, I ran into former House Education chairman Paul Sadler, and asked him what would happen to the budget proposal. “In my experience?  It’s awfully hard to vote to cut funding to your schools.”

Tagged: Paul Sadler, scott hochberg, sylvester turner

This post has been revised since its initial publication.

1. The Tom Schieffer candidacy.

Patricia Kilday Hart and I interviewed Tom Schieffer about his race for the Democratic nomination governor. Interestingly, Schieffer asked to go off the record before the interview to discuss the events that led to his being named one of the Ten Worst legislators in 1975. That was my first year to participate in the writing of the story, along with my then-colleague, Griffin Smith. The writeup was one of the toughest that we have ever written. It was full of anonymous quotes, which we seldom use today. Nowadays, the writeups are largely based on the public record. Schieffer was involved in one of the session’s biggest fights, an effort to authorize Texas’s first presidential primary in order to aid U.S. Senator Lloyd Bentsen’s bid for the Democratic nomination for president in 1976. The Texas Democratic party in that era was split into liberal and conservative wings, and Schieffer was a conservative Democrat. The liberals were fighting him hard all the way, including my former mentor, Babe Schwartz, and I am sure that that influenced the writeup. The ink was hardly dry on the issue before I began to have second thoughts about whether Schieffer really deserved being on the Worst list. The bill did pass, and Texas did have its first primary–not that it helped Bentsen, who was overwhelmed in his home state by Jimmy Carter.

Schieffer has gone on to have a successful career as an oil and gas operator, as president of the Texas Rangers baseball team, and as ambassador to Australia and Japan in the George W. Bush administration. He should be considered a legitimate candidate for governor. The Ten Worst article was 34 years ago. There are lot of obstacles in the path of a Schieffer candidacy, but that article shouldn’t be one of them. The main obstacles, of course, are Schieffer’s association with Bush and his well motivated, but ultimately self-defeating, unwillingness to distance himself from his friend and former Rangers’ business partner; his reluctance as a candidate, including the question of whether he will put his own money into the campaign; and–how do I put this?–a question of whether he has a feel for contemporary Texas politics. I had the feeling, talking to him, that he has one foot in the present and one foot in the seventies, when conservative Democrats ran the state. He still talks about Lloyd Bentsen and John Connally. Connally and Bentsen and Hobby were giants in their day, and they ran things a heck of a lot better than the Republicans have, but Schieffer so far seems like he is just putting his toes in the water. He needs to jump in.

2. The transportation stimulus package.

Transportation is one area where the stimulus package can produce real jobs and have real economic benefits. So why is the amount so small–just $2.5 billion overall, and $1.2 billion in the first installment? One of the reasons is that Obama wants to invest in high-speed rail rather than roads. I think this is a mistake.

I’d like to see more of the money go to highways and less to high-speed rail. High-speed rail requires total grade separation. For rural Texas, it will make the Trans-Texas Corridor battle look like a walk in the park. I ran some numbers back in the early nineties, when the idea of a bullet train was first floated, and to break even on the project’s then $6 billion cost, trains had to run 97% full between Houston and Dallas 24 hours a day. Like it or not, the most efficient method of getting people from point A to point B is one lane of freeway. In an hour, it carries six times the number of people as rail, and the cost is approximately the same.

Politically, the most important aspect of the transportation funding battle was the continuing hostility between TxDOT and the Legislature. TxDOT froze lawmakers out of the discussion of which projects should be funded, with the result that 70% of the money will go to toll roads. Legislators did not cover themselves with glory either, as some took the opportunity to lobby for projects in their districts. The level of mistrust of TxDOT is as high as it has ever been–thanks to Commissioner Ted Houghton, who decided to do a little bomb-throwing of his own at the March 5 meeting of the Texas Highway Commission, calling one of the witnesses and the organization he represents “idiots.” Senator Hegar fired off a letter to Houghton, which included the following observations:

(more…)

Tagged: john corona, robert duncan, scott hochberg, ted houghton, Texas governor, texas public policy foundation, Tom Schieffer, trans-texas corridor, txdot, voter ID

Committee appointments will be the first real test of the Straus speakership. How many of the 149 members can he satisfy? Here are some of the problems he will face:

—Straus has said that there will be no retaliation against Craddick loyalists. Good luck in keeping that promise. The ABCs are going to want to send some folks to the penalty box. (A theoretical question: Should we still refer to the ABCs by that designation, if “C” is no longer a factor? We can’t refer to them as “insurgents” any more, either, since they are now insiders.) It is a lot easier to handle committee assignments when you start with an enemies’ list. You can consign 25 to 30 members to oblivion. In Craddick’s case, the number was much higher, since most Democrats were excluded from major committees unless they were protected by seniority.

—Will seniority apply to Appropriations? Craddick revoked seniority on the committee because the panel he inherited from Laney was Democrat-heavy. Straus inherits a Republican-heavy committee. One of the things the Democrats are going to want from a Straus speakership is fair representation on major committees. To achieve that on Appropriations, Straus is going to have to follow Craddick’s lead and do away with seniority on Appropriations so that Gallego and Coleman can return to the panel. But he also needs to retain some of the experienced hands who know the budget.

—Can he satisfy the ambitions of the former ABCs? Those who were Craddick chairs (Pitts, Keffer, Solomons, Cook, Eissler) may want more prominent positions; those who weren’t (Geren, Kuempel, McCall, Merritt, Jones) will want a gavel or more.

The big prizes are Appropriations, Calendars, and Ways & Means. I’ll say who I think the leading contenders are—or, more to the point, ought to be, for these and other committees. This is not a complete list; I have tried to pick those committees that have the most impact on public policy. I have made certain assumptions: (1) The individual ABCs will get whatever they want, subject to internal conflicts within the group; (2) Early pledgers to Straus will do better than late pledgers when it comes to chairmanships; (3) Democrats will get the chairmanships of second-tier committees that are important to their party (e.g., Elections, Environmental Regulation, Higher Ed); (4) Returning chairs who performed at a high level will be retained; (5) Some returning chairs are headed for the penalty box.

Speaker pro tem: Senfronia Thompson

Appropriations: Pitts (chair in 2005) or Branch, with Keffer as a dark horse. Eiland as vice-chair would be in position to secure funding for the University of Texas Medical Branch.

Calendars: Geren. He has emerged as Straus’s go-to guy. He is clearly going to be a major player this session, if not at Calendars, then in another high-profile position.

Ways & Means: McCall. The word is that Keffer’s interests are said to lie elsewhere. Oliveira, who chaired the committee in the Laney years, could end up here. If Straus does not merge Local Ways & Means with the main committee, another chairmanship is available.

Public Education: The Eissler/Hochberg pairing is too good to break up.

Elections: Joaquin Castro or Trey Martinez-Fischer. This is one of the committees that the Democrats really want to control. Anchia, a veteran of the Voter I.D. battle with penalty-box-bound Leo Berman, is the obvious choice, but his skills could be put to better use elsewhere. Because of Dallas’s concerns with coal plants, I have him as a possibility for Environmental Reg; other contenders there could be Menendez and Strama. Castro or Martinez-Fischer could provide a decent burial for the Voter I.D. bill.

Insurance: This is a big year for insurance issues. The department has just been through Sunset review, and there is considerable displeasure with the agency’s regulation of the industry (or lack thereof), especially on the D side of the aisle. Smithee has chaired the committee forever, with a high level of confidence from members, but insurance is Straus’s profession and he will have his own priorities. If Straus decides to make a change, Eiland (a coastal legislator who has concerns about windstorm insurance) and Taylor (ditto) are possibilities.

Public Health: Jodie Laubenberg inherited the chairmanship when Dianne Delisi resigned from the House. She is unlikely to get the job on a permanent basis. A health care lobbyist tells me that Veronica Gonzales has the inside track. Garnet Coleman and Vicki Truitt are other contenders.

Culture, Recreation, and Tourism: Current chair Hilderbran should keep the position, unless Kuempel wants it. If he does, scratch penalty box candidate Sid Miller at Agriculture and Livestock and pencil in Hilderbran.

Environmental Regulation: Dennis Bonnen has been a controversial chairman; two years ago he bottled up a host of clear air bills, promising a comprehensive bill in 2009. I doubt that he will get that opportunity. I would not be surprised to see Kuempel, a member of the committee, move up to chairman, although this change in leadership may not produce a change in philosophy. If Kuempel doesn’t want it, Straus, who is pretty green himself (no pun about inexperience intended), could turn to a green Democrat such as Anchia or Menendez or Strama. As is the case with Elections, Environmental Reg is one of the committees the D’s would dearly love to control.

Energy Resources: Rick Hardcastle is the chairman, but if Tommy Merritt wants it, he gets it.

Economic Development: Joe Deshotel was chairman last session. His vice-chairman was Joe Straus. I’m betting Deshotel stays.

Business and Industry: Helen Giddings is the current chairman. This will be a test of whether the Craddick D’s get punished or not. If the answer is yes, Gary Elkins, the vice-chair and an on-again, off-again ABC over the years, and an early Straus pledge, is a likely candidate.

Criminal Jurisprudence: As was the case with Giddings, Pena is a former Craddick D whose fate will be closely watched. The committee mangled Jessica’s Law last session and Debbie Riddle had to be rescued on the floor. Dunnam could do a bang-up job as chairman, but he may prefer to be an ordinary member on more important committees.

Transportation: The chairmanship was left vacant by Krusee’s retirement. If Straus wants change at TxDOT (hear! hear!), he should install Joe Pickett as chairman. Pickett was an early and prescient critic of TxDOT, and he is one of the three most knowledgeable members in the House on transportation issues. But Straus’s chief of staff, Clyde Alexander, a former Transportation chairman, was close to TxDOT, and Joe Krier, husband of Straus transition team member, was an advocate for transportation issues. I’m afraid Pickett won’t make the cut (shame! shame!) and a TxDOT apologist will get the job. Wayne Smith, a veteran of the moratorium wars of 2007, may be the choice.

Higher Education: Patrick Rose. Holdover chair Geanie Morrison, who passed tuition deregulation in 2003, won’t make the cut. Rose, who has served on the committee, is from Hays County (Texas State), which makes him neutral in the rivalries involving UT, A&M, and Texas Tech. This is an important committee for Democrats because of the Top Ten Percent rule, which UT wants to see revised.

Corrections: Jerry Madden was a great chairman in 2007. He should stay.

Regulated Industries: Burt Solomons. It remains to be seen whether this will remain a separate committee or whether Straus will bring it back into State Affairs. I would prefer to see State Affairs reconstituted as it used to be, with some of the best members in the Legislature handling some of the most difficult issues. Chairman Phil King is surely headed for the penalty box, so the position will be vacant. Solomons had to deal with regulatory issues on Sunset, which led to a tussle with King. Sylvester Turner would be an equally fine choice, if the Democrats are not bent on punishing former Craddick D’s.

Human Resources: Naishtat may regain the chairmanship he lost when the R’s took over.

Pensions & Investments: John Otto. He can count. However, Straus may want Vicki Truitt to remain as chair. This could be a very important position because of the vulnerability of the two big pension funds to the economic crisis. If Straus (or Truitt) want to make a switch, Otto can figure out what is going on.

Licensing and Administrative Procedure: ABK (Anybody but Kino, including Delwin Jones).

Financial Institutions: If Otto doesn’t go to Pensions & Investments, this is another good landing place for somebody who can count.

Civil Practices: Cook did a great job as chairman last session and should stay, if that is what he wants to do.

Natural Resources: Hamilton is the current chairman. I don’t like to see East Texas members heading this committee. They’re rural, and they have excess water, and they don’t want to share it with the cities. Gallego and Gattis are current members, and either could handle it, but I assume each would prefer to be on Appropriations. West Texas always has major water issues, and this may be the perfect spot for Keffer.

These are all the chairmanships that I am going address. I don’t care who chairs Juvenile Justice or General Investigating.

I have left some big names on the sidelines. Gallego could handle any of several committees—Natural Resources, for one—but I assume he would rather be on Appropriations. The same assumption applies to Coleman, Gattis, and Kolkhorst.

The good news is that there is plenty of talent in the House, if the speaker’s primary interest lies in deploying talent rather than settling scores.

Tagged: abc's, appropriations, Brian McCall, calendars, Charlie Geren, committee appointments, dan branch, dan gattis, jim pitts, joaquin castro, jodie laubenberg, john smithee, pete gallego, Rob eissler, scott hochberg, senfronia thompson, speaker joe straus, trey martinez-fischer, ways & means

Before election day, when it still seemed as if Tom Craddick might win reelection as speaker, Terral Smith told me about what he hoped to do with committee assignments. Rather than use vice-chairmanships as a reward for loyal team members, Smith wanted to replicate the relationship between Rob Eissler and Scott Hochberg in Public Education. He hoped to have a strong Democratic vice-chair in every substantive committee. This would resemble what occurs in Congress, where the majority party has the chairmanship and the senior member of the minority party is the ranking member. On most congressional committees, these relationships are very good. I thought it was a great idea, but neither Terral nor I was sure that Craddick would agree to it. I hear that they have had other things on their minds since then.

I think it would serve Straus and the House well if the vice- chairmanships became meaningful positions, something more than an opportunity to mount a gavel on a wall plaque. The vice-chair should be a strong member from the opposite party of the chairman. This situation would formalize working across party lines.

Note to would-be commenters: Just because it came out of Craddick’s office doesn’t mean it is a bad idea.

Tagged: Joe Straus, Rob eissler, scott hochberg, speaker's race, terral smith, tom craddick

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

11/14 Update: Peer Pressure works again! Now we have eight of the nine. (Delwin Jones, please report to me.) So who’s your favorite? Naturally, in the interest of bipartisanship and journalistic ethics, I will not be revealing my choice.

11/14 Update #2: Delwin Jones’s statement was lost in Evan Smith’s office clutter. The list now reflects this.

We asked each of the candidates (as nicely as possible) for Speaker to submit statements on why they think they should hold the highly coveted gavel next session. Six have gotten back to us; three are MIA (you know who you are).

Click to read them at Speaker Up.

Tagged: alan ritter, candidates, jim keffer, scott hochberg, sylvester turner, texas speaker's race, tom craddick, tommy merritt