Tue February 10, 2015 4:03 pm By R.G. Ratcliffe

During my care-free years in college, I owned a single-action, western style .357 magnum revolver that my buddies and I would take to the bluffs overlooking the Missouri River. We’d sit, talk about the past, dream about the future and take potshots at whatever happened to float downstream. We were more likely to create geysers of water than to hit anything in the fast-flowing wide Missouri. Plinking with firearms was something I’d grown up with in the fields and streams on the outskirts of Dallas. As boys, we had BB guns, and then as teenagers we had more adult firearms. We shot tin cans along a railroad track, and once did battle with a v-formation of water snakes coming down the creek. Those days always come back to me whenever I hear John Prine’s song about a childhood of hunting pop bottles along the Green River in Muhlenberg County, Kentucky.

Those fields of my youth are gone, replaced by tract housing and apartments north of the Addison Airport, and many of the creeks where we splashed as boys are just concrete culverts. But despite all the times I went plinking when young, I’ve never felt so threatened as an adult to think it was necessary to carry a handgun for self-defense. I’m not going to argue the merits or demerits of carrying pistols, open or concealed, because there are enough standard bearers on both sides of that issue to knee-jerk it to death. I merely want to point out that the sales job for the open carry of handguns is something of a misunderstood and misleading bill of goods.

First, there is a great deal of misunderstanding about exactly what open carry means, because there are two types.

Read More
Tue February 10, 2015 3:09 pm By Erica Grieder

BurkaBlog readers, I bring you good news. In light of my colleague Paul’s pending retirement, my colleague Brian Sweany’s promotion to editor-in-chief, and my apparent inability to write daily posts without shirking my other assignments or giving up my hobby of railing against Obamacare on Twitter, the blog itself has been a little short-staffed.

Thankfully R.G. Ratcliffe has agreed to join us for session. To rejoin us, that is; he was part of Texas Monthly’s politics team during the 2011 session, as many of you no doubt remember. And he’s covered the Lege since 1983, as a political writer for the Houston Chronicle, among other outlets, so he knows what he’s talking about.

R.G.’s official first day is February 16th, but you can’t keep a political writer from writing about politics, nor should you try, when faced with a Lege as irresistible as this one. So his first post of the session will be up later this afternoon. In the interim, please join me in welcoming R.G. back to BurkaBlog!

Fri February 6, 2015 2:48 pm By Erica Grieder

Overall, I would summarize this week in Texas politics as way less stupid than the preceding one: congratulations all around.

I expect even better things for next week, now that all the committee assignments have been made and the House can join the Senate, and specifically the Senate Finance Committee, in getting down to business. (As a side note, I was tickled by Tony McDonald’s analysis, over at EmpowerTexans, that we’re all a bunch of sheeple for thinking the House Appropriations committee is important.)

Also, a programming note: I’m working on a longer piece about the ongoing guns debate, so I probably won’t be posting about it in the meantime. But since the debate is ongoing, I’d like to refer readers to Chris Hayes’ interview with Poncho Nevarez, which aired on MSNBC last night; by the end of the segment, it’s hard to argue with Nevarez’ conclusion that Watkins is a “yoyo”, and one who is seemingly determined to thwart his supposed cause. Is he the yoyo of the week? Let’s debate that question, and any others, in the comments.

Wed February 4, 2015 7:30 pm By Erica Grieder

Joe Straus has unveiled his committee assignments for the 84th Legislature, and the most shocking thing about his announcement, in my opinion, is the Speaker’s passing comment that there are still 118 days left to go. Really? Surely we’ve been at this longer than three weeks. Nandita Berry’s opening-day speech alone took at least two days, as I recall. 

Read More
Wed February 4, 2015 4:30 pm By Erica Grieder

Over the past year or so both Democrats and Republicans have been vocally critical of the Texas Enterprise Fund, the Texas Emerging Technology Fund, and, more generally, the state’s Perry-era practice of encouraging economic development via direct subsidies and incentives. For some critics, such practices are conceptually indefensible–the government shouldn’t be in the business of picking winners and losers—and should be ended outright. Others are in the reform camp, arguing that the concept is defensible but the programs need better management and oversight, as documented in the Texas State Auditor’s report last year. I’m in the latter camp. My feeling is that this implicit industrial policy has done more good than harm in Texas, although there’s always room for improvement and, in this case, room for reforms. For example, I would scrap film incentives yesterday. So would Senate Finance Chair Jane Nelson, perhaps: the Senate’s base budget bill proposes just $10m for the film incentive program, compared to $95m in the last biennial budget.  But as Aman Batheja reports over at the Texas Tribune, the governor’s office takes a different view:

Amid growing talk of curtailing state incentive programs, a representative from Gov. Greg Abbott’s office told Senate budget writers Tuesday that Texas’ film incentive program needs at least $70 million — but ideally $95 million — in the state’s next two-year budget to keep the state’s film industry thriving.

“We think this program is very important,” Stacey Napier, director of administration in Abbott’s office, told the Senate Finance Committee. “We do have data to show the program is working. It’s bringing in tax revenue.”

Last week, Abbott proposed to scrap the TETF altogether and divide the money remaining in the fund (about $100m), with half going to the TEF and the other half to the Higher Education Coordinating Board, with the idea being to use that money to recruit extra-prestigious faculty. That seemed like a reasonable plan. Conceptually speaking, the TETF, which restricts its awards to industries like biotech and aerospace, is less slushy than the free-ranging TEF. However, the TETF is the smaller of the two. Ending it would count as a major reform, but wouldn’t much restrict the state’s ability to offer incentives. Also, as noted, the TETF is designed to invest in promising industries rather than closing specific deals; about half of the money it’s awarded, since its creation in 2005, has gone to universities to support research. TEF awards are more like deals than investments: the state announces a $10m grant to, say, Toyota, which is going to build a plant in San Antonio that will employ 3,000 people.  

Film incentives are like TEF grants in the sense that they’re specific: the awards are granted to productions that meet specific criteria, about what percentage of filming will take place in Texas, how many workers will be hired in Texas, whether Texas will look reasonable on camera, etc. But as Batheja notes, supporters have defended film incentives because they are unique: because the awards are granted after the production is finished, the system can’t be gamed. That’s a fair point; TEF awardees have routinely failed to deliver the promised number of jobs and so on. And it’s why Napier, in her testimony to the Senate Finance committee, was able to say that the data exists and that based on the data, the film incentives program bring in more money than they cost.

By the same token, though, film incentives are only deals, not investments at all. They’re different, in other words, from TETF awards, but they’re also slightly different from the typical TEF grant. The hypothetical TEF award described above wouldn’t obligate Toyota to maintain its operations in Texas for fifty years, but it would logically improve the odds that a Toyota, having incurred the capital costs of the new plant and trained workers to operate it, will find it easier to stay in Texas than to up sticks. For obvious reasons there’s no such possibility in the case of film incentives. They’re straight-up deals. And they may be deals worth making. But Abbott’s preferences on incentives—in favor of film, skeptical of TETF–suggest a philosophical approach that, for better or worse, is a departure from Perry’s, and would represent a significant change of course.