Inconvenient writing assignments have kept me away from the blog in recent days, so I have a lot of catching up to do. (I have stories in the September issue on the status of Galveston’s recovery from Hurricane Ike one year later and on the prospects for Gail Lowe, the new chair of the State Board of Education, to restore some decorum and sense of public purpose to the board.)

A Gallup survey released yesterday ranked Texas as “competitive.” The results were based upon tracking polls during the first six months of 2009. The number of respondents in Texas was 9,179, and the margin of error was extremely small, +/- 1%. The tally: 42% self-identified as Democrats or independents who leaned Democrat, 40% said they were Republicans or independents who leaned Republican.

Do I believe this? Yes — and no. I have regarded Texas as competitive ever since the 2008 presidential primary, when Democrats outvoted Republicans by more than 2 to 1 (2.8 million D’s, 1.3 million R’s, both parties posting record turnouts). Part of the Democrats’ numerical advantage was accounted for by the fact that their primary was hotly contested between Obama and Clinton, while the Republican contest between McCain and Huckabee was anticlimactic, McCain being all but assured of the GOP nomination at the time. The Democratic primary established that there are plenty of D’s who will turn out if they have a candidate to vote for. And that’s the problem. They don’t have one.

That Texas is competitive (according to Gallup, at least) is not news in the polling world. A similar Gallup poll in 2008 had the same finding, and we know what happened. In the only poll that counts, the one on election day, Texas was not competitive. McCain defeated Obama by 950,000 votes, which amounted to a margin of victory of 55.45% to 43.68%. That is a whupping. John Cornyn breezed to an easy win in his Senate race. No Republican statewide elected official had a close race.

Indeed, Gallup appeared to hedge on its own findings, which found that only four states could be classified as solid Republican:

There is reason to be skeptical about the low number of Republican states. Republican John McCain carried all eight of the so-called competitive states in the 2008 presidential election. In fact, we really need to look no further than Texas, which Gallup polling also found to be competitive in 2008: McCain won the state by 11 points in an election he lost nationally. When Republican U.S. senators faced close battles in places such as Kentucky and North Carolina, Texan John Cornyn was never in serious jeopardy. And, of course, no Democrat has won a statewide race since 1994.

I don’t see any reason to back away from what I have written previously.
1. The state Democratic party has no credibility.
2. Without a public face for the party, it cannot be competitive in statewide races.
3. What makes Texas competitive is that independents have abandoned the Republican party.
4. But, as the UT Poll has established, independents tend to break in favor of Republican on election day.
5. The Democrats cannot even generate turnout. Hispanics aren’t voting.

The best indication of the Democrats’ moribund state is that no one is lining up to run for statewide office. Politicians know which way the wind blows.

Tagged: competitive, gallup poll, texas

The first is from the Wall Street Journal’s Opinion page for Saturday, July 13. The second was sent to me, unsolicited, by a reader, Mary Silbert, a woman whose husband died of mesothelioma five years ago and who worked for the passage of the bill this session. I am publishing it with her permission.

Texas Tort Victories
The plaintiffs-lawyer lobby blows $9 million and gets nowhere.

Texas recently finished its legislative session, and the best news is what didn’t pass. Namely, some 900 bills put forward by the tort bar.

The plaintiffs-lawyer lobby spent $9 million in last year’s state legislative elections to help smooth the way for these bills, which were designed to roll back tort reforms passed in recent years, or to create new ways to sue. Yet that money wasn’t enough to convince most Texas legislators to give up two-decades of hard-won legal progress, which ranges from class-action clean-up to medical liability reform.

Among the more notable failed proposals were a bill that would have shifted the burden of medical proof away from plaintiffs and on to defendants in asbestos and mesothelioma cases; an attempt to rip up Texas’s successful system of trying multidistrict litigation in a single court; and legislation to allow plaintiffs to sue for “phantom” medical expenses.

Part of this success was due to the legislature’s gridlock over a controversial voter ID bill. Yet Republicans who run the Senate and House also did yeoman’s work to keep many bills from ever reaching the floor. Republicans also got a helping hand from a number of brave, antilawsuit Democrats, many of them from South Texas, where litigation has exacted more of an economic toll.

Speaking of the economy, it’s notable that Texas created more new jobs last year than the other 49 states combined. Texas’s low tax burden is one reason. But also important is a fairer legal environment in which companies are less likely than they were a generation ago to face jackpot justice.

* * * *

Tales from the Texas Legislature

This is the story of two men who sought and won public office in the state of Texas, one became a senator in the Texas Legislature and the other, a representative in the same body. Though they both became chairmen of powerful committees and had active legal careers the similarity between the men ends here. This is also the story of a group of Texas families who have faced a horrific battle with one of the most devastating occupational diseases imaginable and then have had to battle for the chance to have their voices heard in Texas courts. What brings these seemingly unconnected people together is a bill that was brought forward in the 81st Legislature and would have provided a measure of justice for those families whose lives would never be the same after their loved ones were stricken with mesothelioma. Finally, this is a story about the state government in Texas, who controls it, and how life and death issues are decided in Austin. What this story should be about is the sense of justice and fairness that most Texans believe is their birthright, part of the very nature of life in Texas. Sadly, it is not, it is about politics which does not deal in fairness or justice but in expedience and self-interest.

(more…)

Tagged: mary silbert, mesothelioma, texas, tort reform

Here are the elements of the deal:

* Automatic admissions capped at 75% of resident admits for UT only, starting with the entering class of 2011 and ending in 2015.

* UT may not use legacy status in its admissions process.

* Cap % of non-residents enrolled in the freshman class at 10%.

* Improve notification provisions to students and parents.

* New reforms do not apply if UT admits fewer students from high schools in the bottom quintile of college-going rates, based on a two-year rolling average.

* New reforms do not apply if a court order or board of regents prohibits the use of race or ethnicity in the admissions process.

* New reforms do not apply if UT-Austin fails to improve outreach and recruitment of undergrads from other general academic teaching institutions to their graduate programs.

The fifth item above — “Improve notification provisions to students and parents” — is crucial. One of the problems UT has in recruiting minority students is that school counselors spend far more time on discipline and dropouts than they spend on college advising. Many students in urban high schools never learn that they have an automatic place at the University of Texas if they finish in the top 10% of their class.

Tagged: texas, top 10%

Remember Albuquerque. The Senate Democrats found themselves stuck in New Mexico without an exit strategy. The situation is similar to congressional redistricting in that the governor holds the cards. He can call a special session on any subject and open the call to Voter I.D. Except that the House Democrats’ position is worse. In 2003, they were fighting against a power play by Tom DeLay, one of the most villainous figures in the country. DeLay and Perry were pushing an unprecedented midcensus congressional redistricting plan. Voter I.D. is a very different matter. The UT poll in Februrary-March found that Texans favored the requirement of a photo I.D. by 69% to 18%. Polls I have seen from states in the upper Midwest, where illegal immigration is not a problem, show support in the 80%+ range. If they walk on this issue, they will do harm to their party. It makes no sense to go nuclear over an issue on which public opinion is 70% against you. And that number will climb if the D’s walk.

Tagged: senate democrats, texas, voter ID

Yes, the feral hogs debate was the House at its finest. No other parliamentary body in America could have produced that debate. Where else could you hear a hog hunt described as economic development? This turned out to be another urban-rural fight, with Sid Miller and Gattis warning of the property damage done by feral hogs and Thibaut insisting that selling seats on helicopters to hunters amounted to sport hunting. Gattis got over-the-top angry about this, as if the Second Amendment was at stake. And the free enterprise system. Miller joined in. “Don’t you think farmers should make a profit?” They warned that the hogs were everywhere, even in the Harris and Fort Bend County suburbs. I have to say that this was not the best argument for the helicopter hunts. I don’t think I’d like to be out in my backyard barbecuing steaks with somebody blasting away from a helicopter overhead.

Tagged: dan gattis, feral hogs, sid miller, texas, thibaut

I came home last night to find a GOPAC survey in my e-mail queue. I tend to vote in Republican primaries (4 of the 6 elections starting in 1998), since that is the only election that matters for statewide candidates, so I assume that is how they found me. Here are the questions and my answers:

1. Do you support your state Governor’s authority to reject stimulus funds from the federal government?
Yes — I support the governor’s authority. I don’t support the rejection.
No
Undecided

2. The Pennsylvania Republican Party recently passed a unanimous resolution urging their lawmakers to oppose the Employee Free Choice Act that would eliminate an employee’s right to a secret ballot. Do you support efforts like this in your own state to oppose “card check” legislation?
Yes — I live in a right to work state, so this is not likely to be an issue here, but I don’t like the card check law at all. It’s overreaching.
No
Undecided

3. Do you believe our elected officials should continue aggressively fighting the War on Terror?
Yes — But I’m skeptical about Obama’s Afghanistan policy. Afghanistan was important only only because it was a base for bin Laden’s training camps. Those camps are gone. Al Qaeda is in Pakistan. The only reason for sending troops to Afghanistan now is to fight the Taliban. Is that worth sacrificing American lives for? If the Taliban take over again, so what? Bin Laden isn’t coming back. The action is in the border regions of Pakistan. Afghanistan is not strategically important today.
No
Undecided

4. Do you support the decision to close down Guantanamo Bay and bring suspected terrorists to be tried and housed in the Continental United States?
Yes — Gitmo is a symbol for the world of America turning its back on its own values. I think we should get rid of it, try terrorists in the courts, and clap those who are convicted in maximum security prisons.
No
Undecided

5. Are you in favor of off-shore drilling?
Yes — Drill, baby, drill. Especially off California and Florida.
No
Undecided

(more…)

Tagged: gopac, paul burka, republican primary, texas

Yesterday I posted a report on Texas Public Policy Foundation’s testimony before House Transportation earlier this week, in which I questioned TPPF’s continuing advocacy for measuring the growth in state spending compared to an index of population growth plus inflation. Later, I learned that Michael Villarreal, one of the sponsors of the local option transportation bill that TPPF opposes, had challenged TPPF on the same subject at the end of Monday. TPPF had charts showing the growth in spending by local governments according to the same index. On the video of the hearing, Villarreal, in questioning TPPF’s Talmadge Heflin, said that the graph failed to take into account that the state had thrust many of its responsibilities on the local level, including transportation, indigent defense, and education. Heflin was also challenged on the use of the consumer price index as a measure of inflation (an issue that I raised in my original post). “The consumer price index measures the cost of butter, eggs, groceries,” Todd Smith said, noting that governments buy different goods. Taking up Villarreal’s theme that transportation responsibilities were being pushed off on local governments, Smith said, “My constituents face commutes of on toll roads that will cost ten to twelve dollars daily, five times a week, because the state hasn’t met their transportation needs.” Heflin’s response was that local areas made a choice to spend their funds on other things. Smith shot back, “This entire line of testimony is that the way we solve this problem is to cut spending.”

Tagged: mike villarreal, spending cap, texas, transportation debate

The Texas Public Policy Foundation testified before the House Transportation committee this week concerning the mammoth local option transportation funding bill that has passed the Senate. TPPF’s Justin Keener expressed alarm about the rising cost of government (to no one’s surprise):

Between 2000 and 2008, the state’s total budget grew by 73.1 percent from $49.5 billion to $85.7 billion, while the sum of population plus inflation only increased by 41.3 percent over the same period. That means the cost of government per person has gone up during this decade. The discrepancy between
spending and the population plus inflation measure is even more distinct at the local level.

Keener’s point is that government at all levels is growing faster than the index of population growth plus inflation. This index represents what TPPF, and conservatives generally, believe the state spending cap ought to be. The question I have is whether TPPF’s measure of population growth plus inflation is the best gauge of how much spending the state can afford. I believe that the answer is no.

Texas already has a spending cap on general revenue. This is Article 8, Section 22 of the state constitution, adopted in 1978:

RESTRICTION ON APPROPRIATIONS. (a) In no biennium shall the rate of growth of appropriations from state tax revenues not dedicated by this constitution exceed the estimated rate of growth of the state’s economy. The legislature shall provide by general law procedures to implement this subsection. [Section (b) authorizes the Legislature to suspend the cap by majority vote if it declares an emergency.]

Economic growth is determined by the Legislative Budget Board–not the staff, but the elected officials who comprise the board. The LBB provides five scenarios for estimated economic growth, ranging from the most optimistic to the least, and the Board chooses one. In 2007, for example, it chose the least optimistic. I believe that using the measure of economic growth has served Texas well. It is a a realistic spending cap, whereas inflation plus population growth is an ideological one, designed to achieve a predetermined outcome of less spending. Economic growth measures the ability of the state to pay for state services: greater in good times, lesser in bad times.

(more…)

Tagged: justin keener, spending cap, texas, texas public policy foundation, transportation

When I read in Friday’s Statesman that Texas had lost its competition with Kentucky for an advanced battery project and the federal research funding that comes with it, I immediately wondered why the governor, who has made such a point of touting economic development, wasn’t more enthusiastic in getting behind the state’s bid. Could it be that this was a research project Texas A&M didn’t want? Or was the stumbling block that that the state’s matching support for a Department of Energy grant for the project might have to come from the Rainy Day Fund, and Perry wasn’t about to raid that pot of money, the defense of which is a line in the dirt for Republicans?

Actually, I think the governor’s decision to give up the fight to land the battery development project made sense, for several reasons:

1. There are a number of ongoing research projects involving batteries. The National
Alliance for Advanced Transportation Batteries is one among several. There will be more opportunities for bites at the apple, and more apples to bite.

2. The Alliance wanted assurances that Mark Strama’s proposal moving $1 billion from the Rainy Day Fund to a new Sunny Day Fund (to match federal dollars) would pass. Nobody, not even the governor, can give anybody any assurances about what the Texas Legislature might do.

3. Whatever you think of the governor’s economic development policies–and the manipulation of funds, brought out by the House Appropriations committee, is a rich subject for another day–it is clear that the governor’s primary focus is on bringing jobs to Texas. Technology research is not necessarily employment-intensive, at least in the development phase. I’m willing to entertain the thought that the governor may have been driven by political considerations concerning the Rainy Day Fund, but I think that in the end, Texas just wasn’t in position to make the deal work.

Tagged: advanced battery project, kentucky, texas

This is a report from Texas Monthly’s intern, Abby Rapoport, on the Public Safety committee hearing of March 30 on Joe Driver’s bill allowing guns on campus.

It was four hours into the meeting before Public Safety made it to the issue that had brought crowds. Joe Driver presented HB 1893 which would allow concealed handguns on public and private college campuses. In his introduction, Driver argued that the bill did not affect most students, since the bill applies only to those over 21 and still allows colleges to forbid firearms in dorms. “The idea that the act will result in any increase in violence is simply incorrect,” he said.

As witnesses testified, Phil King took the middle ground and drew on his own experiences, having been a police officer while in college. He concerned himself with whether or not students should have handguns, although he wanted to make sure everyone could have a gun in a car. “Faculty who have a long walk [keeping a gun] in a drawer or a purse—I would be willing to acknowledge the need for that,” he said. When questions arose—specifically about how the law would affect teachers who were also taking classes—King, along with Merritt, insisted on the DPS witness calling his office for more information.

Lon Burnam and Joe Driver, coming from opposite ideological sides, worked together in prolonging the testimony. Burnam took an impressively sanctimonious route in much of his questioning. Best example: In questioning the president of La Tourneau University, he asked the president if the school taught the Ten Commandments. The poor witness said yes only to have Burnam continue: “And is one of them ‘Thou shalt not kill’? …. And what is a gun for?” Many seemed to cringe that the debate on CHLs on campuses might turn into a debate on guns in general, when there were still many left to testify.

(more…)

Tagged: college campuses, guns, hb 1893, joe driver, phil king, texas