04.30.09
Posted in 81st Legislature, Around The State, Money In Politics, Privatization, Road Issues, The Lege, Transportation, Uncategorized at 2:35 pm by wcnews
Hank Gilbert’s post at BOR yesterday made some very good points about the state of transportation legislation in the current session of the Texas legislature. The current situation regarding how we fund transportation in Texas isn’t going to change unless the people of Texas force their elected representatives to make tough but needed choices. A few excepts form the post:
On Tuesday, the Texas House passed it’s version of the TxDOT Sunset bill. Not only did it not mirror hardly anything that the Sunset Commission suggested from their almost year-long review of the agency, it was also loaded down with a laundry list of other transportation bills, thus making it an omnibus transportation bill. We, at Texas TURF, had predicted as much midway through the session. Everyone should know, that if this thing passes, the tax-paying, traveling public in Texas will never come out of this recession that we find ourselves in today.
[...]
Texas TURF is a bi-partisan organization that has over 100,000 members statewide. Terri Hall, a republican mother of 7, and myself, formed this organization immediately after the ’06 elections. We have worked very hard to convince legislators to listen to the people and reform this rouge agency, TxDOT. However, as a senator’s aide put it a couple of weeks ago,”we know that ya’ll are right, but you don’t have anything to offer.” In other words, without stock options, paid luxury vacations, etc., you and your group are no use to us.Over the past 3 years, we have testified, on behalf of the people of Texas, at a variety of hearings. Texas Transportation Committee, House and Senate Transportation Committee hearings, and town-hall meetings throughout Texas and the United States, are just a few of the events that have heard our passionate testimonies. In a lot of the legislative hearings, we are treated as “second-class” citizens. Most of you know that I don’t take very kindly to that type of behavior.
For almost every day of this legislative session, either Terri or I have been in Austin meeting with legislators and/or testifying to committees. We have testified for some good legislation (eminent domain and some transportation bills) and against many transportation bills. Most of the bills that we support are stuck in committee, and probably won’t see the light of day. Most, if not all of the bills that we oppose, are well on their way to becoming law unless people start speaking up.
[...]
We need your help! We need people from all over the state emailing, calling and faxing the leg. demanding that they stop the expanding of TxDOT, and that they vote to rein in this agency. We demand an end to the Republican-led socialization of Texas! We also need help in developing a legislative “score card or fact sheet” on each of these members that can be used against them in their districts for the 2010 election cycle. Without this, be prepared to re-write your own personal budgets allowing for a “transportation allowance” that will be needed to travel anywhere in our great state. Unfortunately, a large portion of Texans don’t have those funds available.
There are two bills that are essentially the same – HB 300 and SB 1019 – one of which will be the Sunset review bill and may become a “vehicle” for all transportation legislation this session, (referenced above as an omnibus bill). Neither has made it to the floor for debate yet. HB 300 was reported favorably from the committee on Tuesday, but has not been put on a calendar yet. SB 1019 is still in committee.
Gilbert essentially lays out the less than ideal situation Texas finds itself in on this issue. With elected officials beholden to those who offer the best deal, the people are without any worthwhile representation. It’s not a situation where good public policy can passed. With what’s best for the Transportation Industrial Complex (TIC)being put ahead of the interest of the people/taxpayer. That is, where the risk is taken out of these deals for the corporations, and their losses are socialized – paid by the taxpayers. They’re free to make a profit but not a loss – that’s what the so-called “free market” has become in this scenario.
Today we are again informed by TxDOT that they’re in a dire financial situation, TxDOT now airing dismal trend. (Read the 10 page Memo here [.pdf].)
If I were a betting man, I’d bet that lawmakers won’t leave Austin next month without passing some kind of bill to address all this. Members will consider a tax bill a risky deal politically, but there’s also a risk in being part of a do-nothing Legislature.
Me, I’d vote out the do-nothings and try to convince my editorial board that we would need to skewer them thoroughly.
I’d bet if the do anything regarding fixing the lack of funding it’ll seem like nothing. Keep in mind the the key recommendations from the Sunset Commission.
- achieve greater accountability under the oversight of a single Commissioner of Transportation;
- enhance the Legislature’s role through a Transportation Legislative Oversight Committee;
- provide better access to independent transportation information and research;
- increase transparency of TxDOT’s transportation planning and project development process;
- improve TxDOT’s public involvement eff orts; and
- make the Department’s contracting functions more accountable, particularly its development of comprehensive development agreements.
TxDOT had major problems coming into this session and some of the recommendations, (single commissioner [appointed not elected], a legislative oversight committee, creation of a Department of Motor Vehicles) are mentioned in the most recent fiscal note to SB 1019. It’s doubtful what’s been proposed thus far will be enough to restore the trust and confidence that’s needed to make TxDOT and effective state transportation agency.
What’s caused our current funding problem is neglect and many Texans buying the bill of goods that was sold to them for the past 30 years – that we can have lower taxes and still have everything we want. The bill has come due, and it’s time to pay up and face up to what’s best for all of us. I highly recommend this post from the DMN’s Transportation blog, How to fix transportation? More taxes, more tolls and more flexibility, says TxDOT’s Holmes. It’s long, has many links, does an excellent job of laying out what a difficult problem this is, and that there isn’t one solution that will fix this problem. And certainly slogans, gimmicks, and corporate schemes are not the answer.
So afflict the comfortable, contact your elected officials and tell them what you think. And McBlogger has more, Quit whining. Do your job.
Permalink
Posted in 81st Legislature, Around The State, Education, Public Schools, Uncategorized at 10:38 am by wcnews
At least one good thing came out of the dueling bills that were passed yesterday by the Texas House and Senate. The stain of then Gov. George W. Bush’s “reforms” have been washed away, via the AAS, House, Senate ease school accountability standards:
Crafted by the education leaders in the Senate and House of Representatives, the bills aim to reduce the role of standardized tests, give schools more flexibility to help struggling students and focus education on readying students for college or the workplace.
Gone are many of the school reforms ushered in by then-Gov. George W. Bush, such as a prohibition on promoting a student to the next grade if he or she failed to pass the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills.
That promotion decision will now be left to the school and parents.
[House Public Education Committee Chairman Rob Eissler, R-The Woodlands] said the overhaul will end the one-size-fits-all approach of the current system and allow for schools to be judged on more than just performance on a single test.
Here’s some “big picture” analysis on these two bills as provided by the Texas AFT:
The Texas House and Senate today passed broadly similar rewrites of the state system of testing and test-based school accountability. The next several hotlines will discuss in detail what these bills, HB 3 and SB 3, would do. Today we will share with you the big picture and report on some of the significant floor amendments adopted in each chamber.
The big picture: Both bills reduce the emphasis on state tests as the basis for promotion decisions in primary and middle school, relying more on the professional judgment of a student’s teachers and on other locally determined criteria. However, the bills would over time add a new standard of “college readiness” in math and English, yet to be defined, as a basis for school accountability ratings. As a result, schools would face at least ten more accountability “tripwires” that could trigger a low-performing rating and start the clock running on potential sanctions including reconstitution and school closure. Eventually, ten more “college readiness” tripwires would be added as standards are developed for social studies and science.
Though originally advertised as an effort to shift the accountability system toward the use of “more carrot than stick,” these companion bills both leave substantially intact the current system of punitive sanctions for schools rated low-performing. The only major easing in this area was the addition of one year to the time available to turn around a low-performing campus before it can be closed, “repurposed,” or contracted out to an “alternative manager.” The bills ended up passing unanimously in both chambers, but not before debates on amendments that illustrated major differences among lawmakers over the future of the accountability system
[...]
Though majorities in both chambers are not yet ready to make a decisive break from excessively test-driven accountability, lawmakers more and more are coming to see the inadequacy of the state’s standardized tests as the primary basis for assessing students, teachers, and schools.
Essentially a step in the right direction but there’s still a long way to go.
Permalink
Posted in Around The Nation, Around The State, Elections, Uncategorized at 9:11 am by wcnews
HChron columnist Rick Casey puts “preclearance”, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, into historic context, Racist schemes called for Voting Rights Act.
Ruling opened door for Barbara Jordan
When President Lyndon Johnson strong-armed Congress into passing the original Voting Rights Act in 1965, he exempted Texas.
But when the act was renewed in 1975, explained University of Houston political scientist Richard Murray, Texas Sen. Lloyd Bentsen was gearing up for a presidential race and needed support from liberals and minorities in the Democratic primary. With his blessing and with a push from formidable U.S. Rep. Barbara Jordan, Texas was added to the Southern states covered.
Jordan had already benefited from a Supreme Court ruling that thwarted one of the stiffest barriers to minority representation.
Until 1965, state representatives in large urban counties in Texas all ran countywide for a “place” on the ballot.
That meant that the same white majority elected all 12 Harris County state representatives. Jordan ran twice and lost both times.
But a 1962 Supreme Court ruling outlawed this scheme, and additionally required Texas to draw state Senate districts roughly equal in population. This gave Harris County three senators and part of a fourth instead of just one.
Jordan promptly won one of the Senate seats.
Houston’s eight-member City Council was all elected citywide, although five were required to live in individual districts.
Davidson said the result was that from post-Reconstruction Days until the Voting Rights Act took effect here, only one black served on the City Council — and he had the backing of some of the business leaders who wanted to ward off criticism.
In 1975, the city wanted to annex all-white Clear Lake. Because it was now under the Voting Rights Act, it had to get permission from the Justice Department.
Election Day moved
To avoid diluting the minority vote, the Justice Department required the current system in which nine council members are elected from districts.
In 1958, a black woman, Hattie Mae White, was elected as an HISD trustee, but only because election required only a plurality, not a majority.
She was joined in 1964 by Asberry Butler, who was black, and by white liberal Gertrude Barnstone, also elected by pluralities.
The next year the Legislature passed a law changing Houston’s school board election from coinciding with the presidential election to the lower-turnout municipal election, and required a runoff. White lost her next election.
At the end of the legislative session, Davidson reported, the bill’s author, HISD teacher-legislator Henry Grover, was promoted to administrator and his salary doubled.
With the likes of Grover and his backers, Houston didn’t need a Bull Connor or his dogs.
But it did need the Voting Rights Act.
If we lose even part of it, history counsels vigilance.
Permalink
04.29.09
Posted in Local Elections, Uncategorized, Williamson County at 10:06 pm by wcnews
Via the county elections page only 792 people [.pdf] had voted in the first two days. Early voting information here. Heaviest turnout so far has been at the Anderson Mill location. Where keeping local control of some neighborhood amenities, after they were annexed by the Austin, is on the ballot. Via News 8, Anderson Mill to vote on limited district.
n December, the City of Austin annexed the Anderson Mill Municipal Utility District. Under the agreement, neighbors get two chances to decide whether they want to maintain a limited district. The first chance is May 9.
The district would be run by a board of five members.
Anderson Mill Neighborhood Association President Phillip Denney said voting against the limited district would mean relinquishing their parks, pools, trash and deed restrictions to the City of Austin.
“All of the assets of the limited district including the $10 million escrow account would go to the city,” Denney said.
If neighbors vote to keep control, they’ll have to pay an average of $160 more per year in property taxes, according to Denney. If they give up control to the city, they don’t have to pay anything other than the property taxes they are currently paying.
There’s quite a discussion going on over at Impact News in the comments section of their article, Anderson Mill residents vote on limited district.
Permalink
Posted in Around The Nation, Around The State, Elections, Uncategorized at 9:45 pm by wcnews
There are now 71 GOP members of the Texas House signed onto the letter. The 5 that haven’t signed are Straus (Speaker, wasn’t asked), T. Smith and D. Bonnen (On the committee, staying out of the fray – for now), Merritt and D. Jones (voted against it last session). It’s not surprising that most have jumped on board, why wouldn’t they? Only bad could come from not having their name on this, no matter what the final bill has in it and how they vote on it.
From SCOTUS today preclearance, Section 5 of the Voting Right Act of 1965 may be in trouble, Court Reveals Customary Divide In Wrestling With Anti-Bias Law. Here’s key quote from today Justice Anthony M. Kennedy:
“The Congress has made a finding that the sovereignty of Georgia is less than the sovereign dignity of Ohio. The sovereignty of Alabama is less than the sovereign dignity of Michigan,” Kennedy said, referring to Congress’s 2006 reauthorization of the act.
That was always the case, but it was done because election law was being intentionally written to exclude. That’s why this excerpt from NPR caught my ear today, Voting Rights Act Faces New Challenge.
Voting Rights Act supporters say the law is still needed. They note, for example, that in many places with long histories of discrimination, voting is still polarized along racial lines. In Alabama and Mississippi, fewer than 11 percent of white voters supported Barack Obama.
Stanford law professor Pam Karlan says, “Saying ‘Let’s get rid of the Voting Rights Act’ is a little bit like saying ‘The doctor put some stitches in so you’re not bleeding anymore, let’s just rip the stitches out.'”
Nonsense, says Coleman, who notes that the Justice Department blocked voting changes in less than 1 percent of the places that sought pre-clearance.
“[You] have such a minuscule rate of objections that the declaration that state and local officials are presumptively not to be trusted in this area simply cannot be borne out,” he says.
But supporters of the Voting Rights Act reply that the whole point of the pre-clearance provision is to prevent attempts to discriminate. They pointed to hundreds of examples — more than 100 in Texas alone — in which the pre-clearance provision prevented elaborate schemes to suppress minority voting.
In one county they cite, it took decades for students at the historically black college there to win the right to vote. Then in 2004, county commissioners — aware that students would be on break during the primary election — voted to reduce early voting dramatically. The county abandoned this effort only after the NAACP complained to the Justice Department to see if the provision had been pre-cleared.
John Payton of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund says that without pre-clearance, the door would be opened for such schemes.
“Not only would we see all of these hundreds of proposed changes come into existence, we’d see others come out of the woodwork that would in fact infect and pervert our democracy,” he says.
While preclearance process doesn’t reject many new laws, lawmakers knowing that whatever election law they pass will have to go through preclearance forces them to make that law as inclusive as they can. Therefore preclearnace is still having it’s desired effect on election law. SCOTUS blog and Election Law blog have more.
Permalink
Posted in 81st Legislature, Around The Nation, Around The State, Commentary, Elections, The Lege, Uncategorized at 9:28 am by wcnews
With a house committee vote looming on Voter ID tomorrow, some GOP members of the Texas House have signed a statement [.doc]. It lists four items a Voter ID bill “must” include if they are to vote for it. The list, the list,who’s on it? Better question, who isn’t? Here’s the list of GOP house members that didn’t sign the GOP statement on Voter ID.
Dwayne Bohac, Dennis Bonnen, Dan Branch, Fred Brown, Byron Cook, Frank Corte, Drew Darby, Rob Eissler, Mike Hamilton, Rick Hardcastle, Harvey Hildebran, Charlie Howard, Delwin Jones, Jim Keffer, Susan King, Lois Kolkhorst, Edmund Kuempel, Brian McCall, Tommy Merritt, Sid Miller, Diane Patrick, Ken Paxton, Jim Pitts, Todd Smith (Elections Committee Chair), Joe Straus (Speaker). [Pitts was taken off via Burka].
Those highlighted are from the group of 11 ABC’s (Anyone But Craddick), who chose Joe Straus to run as their choice for Speaker. Only two three, (Charlie Geren, Jim Pitts, and Burt Solomons), signed the statement on Voter ID. It would seem that these are the GOP house members that are willing to compromise to pass a Voter ID bill. That’s 25 24votes, they still need 51 52 more votes to pass a bill.
Here are the four things those 51 52 GOP members are demanding in a bill:
- Ensure a valid photo identification is needed to vote
- Take effect at the next possible uniform election date
- Be free of any registration requirements such as same day voter registration that dilutes the intent of the bill, which is ensuring fair and accurate elections.
- Increase criminal penalties for voter fraud and registration
The only one of those appears to be a shoo-in is #4. I think most legislators, in both parties, agree there should be increased penalties. Same day registration, #3, has always been an area that could bring enough Democrats around to get a compromise on a Voter ID, but is anathema to many in the GOP . Using other forms of non-photo ID, #1, has always been part of a bill, this session and last. And a phase-in period, #2, has been mentioned this session as an area of a compromise.
It wouldn’t seem unlikely that they would get all four of these in a bill that could pass the house. But in a negotiation, it’s best to ask to the moon and stars first, then settle for what you absolutely must have later. It’s likely that same day registration won’t, unfortunately, get in the bill. So the best that House Elections Committee Chair Todd Smith and Speaker Straus can hope for is that they can bring around enough members around with a bill that includes some exceptions to a photo ID (#1), some form of phase-in (#2) and tougher penalties (#4).
Or they can choose this route, which Kuff describes:
That’s assuming that the whole thing doesn’t get blown up by the Republican hardcore, as documented by Gardner Selby:
I’m hearing from Capitol sources that Rep. Todd Smith, R-Euless, privately told GOP colleagues today he’d reached closure on his intended-to-be-a-compromise version of voter ID legislation and might even issue an afternoon press release saying so.To which, some Republicans reportedly reacted: “Whoa, Nelly (or Toddy).”
Their beef: They’d prefer not to see Smith, chairman of the House Committee on Elections, running out a softened-up approach that they don’t think meets the intended ID mandate.
True, it’d be a painful political boomerang for Republicans to see House Democrats (on the short end of the 76-74 House split between the parties) wrest control of the GOP’s most-valued legislative proposal (though the flip side, perhaps fueling Smith’s hunt for common ground, is that if the Senate-approved version of voter ID isn’t tweaked, he could fall short of getting the proposal out of his committee or off the House floor; tough cookies).
Until Smith speaks out (yup, I’ve tried to reach him), I’m left with separate statements from Rep. Betty Brown, R-Terrell, who takes a hard line on the voter ID front, and from 51 House Republicans (including Brown) similarly saying they’re not interested in phasing in changes or making it easier for most anyone to vote without presenting proof of their identity.
GOP blow-up? I’m waiting to hear more.
For what it’s worth, Rep. Smith says it was all sweetness and light when he addressed the caucus about his bill. Sure it was. I can’t think of a better resolution to this mess than a GOP implosion as no bill gets passed because the hardliners refuse to accept a compromise, while their version fails to get enough votes. Nothing could illustrate the point that this is all just a naked partisan power grab than that. Form a circle, Republicans, and load up those AK-47s! We’ll start popping the popcorn now.
Voter ID being killed because GOP members of the Texas House wouldn’t vote for a compromise would be sweet irony.
And a local challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act will be argued before the US Supreme Court today, via SCOTUS blog:
Following the release of any opinions, the Court will hear argument in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Eric Holder, Jr, Attorney General, et al. (08-322), on the constitutionality of Congress’ 25-year extension of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
This is important because as of now any Voter ID law passed in Texas will have to go through “pre-clearance” before it can be put into effect. Depending on how the court might rule, it’s possible that could change.
Permalink
04.28.09
Posted in Around The State, Privatization, Road Issues, Transportation, Uncategorized at 1:49 pm by wcnews
Transportation point man in the legislature, Sen. John Carona, passed SB 1350 out of the Senate today. It will create the Texas Transportation Revolving Fund (TTRF), essentially a Transportation “bank”, as Patricia Kilday Hart calls it.
While the lege setting up a transportation bank is scary enough, there are a couple of other problems with this legislation. First from the fiscal note we find out who will be responsible for administering the fund.
The bill would amend the Transportation Code to create the Texas Transportation Revolving Fund to be held in the Texas Treasury Safekeeping Trust Company and to be administered by the Texas Transportation Commission (TTC) through the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). The bill would require TTC to file an annual report with the Governor and the presiding officer of each house of the legislature providing certain information on the operation of the fund. (Emphasis added).
Letting TxDOT run a bank is probably not the best idea, considering TxDOT’s recent problems with fiscal management. Wouldn’t be wise to have TxDOT adminisgtering a transportation bank. The other problem the type of projects this is being structured/manipulated for.
The current economic instability in equity and credit markets has made it difficult for public and private entities alike to obtain financing for needed transportation projects, especially startup toll authorities such as regional mobility authorities. Issues with municipal bond access and project financial feasibility may require some degree of state level support to ensure the project is sound from a financial and credit standpoint.
Subject to constitutional limitations, a transportation revolving fund can be used to provide loans or credit enhancement, or to serve as a reserve fund for debt financing or the cost of operation and maintenance. This would allow public and private entities, particularly local tolling authorities, to mitigate certain project financial risks which limit access to the capital markets, or to access additional financing for needed projects. (Emphasis added).
Nothing like a bill to “prop up” toll projects that may not be “sound from a financial or credit standpoint”. Instead of doing this they could just raise the gas tax and not have to worry about creating another scheme to build toll roads. The AAS has more, Transportation revolving fund approved.
Permalink
Posted in Around The State, Good Stuff, Road Issues, Transportation, Uncategorized at 11:40 am by wcnews
The latest article from the Comptroller’s recover page the “On The Money” column, Grasping a lifeline, details how the federal stimulus is putting people back to work.
From 2004 through 2006, according to the Associated General Contractors of Texas, the state was awarding from $4.3 billion to $4.8 billion in new business each year.
Tolls, bonds and gasoline taxes fueled the work. When the money began to run out, new contracts dropped to $2.7 billion in 2007 and $2.4 billion last year.
“It was pathetic,” said Tom Johnson with the Associated General Contractors.
Over the long-term, Johnson said highway construction would continue to dwindle in Texas until state officials settle on a sustainable method of paying for new projects.
Meanwhile, the economy stalled. Last fall, highway contractors in Texas began laying off workers at a rate of 5,000 a month, Johnson said.
Then Congress passed the recovery act.
“The stimulus is a real lifeline,” Johnson said. “We’re back on the path of putting people to work.”
The $2.25 billion in stimulus money earmarked for Texas highways is a reprieve — for now.
John Barton, assistant executive director for engineering operations at the Texas Department of Transportation, likens it to an employee facing a 50 percent pay cut getting a one-time bonus.
It buys the industry time, however, and is allowing the transportation department to whittle down its waiting list of projects.
“It’s certainly giving us an opportunity to do a lot of work,” Barton said.
The work is also costing less because of cheaper supplies than when the projects were first proposed.
Bids for new construction are running about 20 percent cheaper than the state’s estimates.
One reason is that state engineers use a 12-month rolling average of costs in their estimates. The projects being bid today were designed months ago.
The pre-recession estimates don’t fully reflect the cheaper prices for gasoline, asphalt and labor that appear in the latest bids.
Still, Barton said, “It’s a buyer’s market.”
Working as designed.
Permalink
Posted in 2010 Primary, Around The Nation, Around The State, Bad Government Republicans, Privatization, Road Issues, Transportation, Uncategorized at 10:53 am by wcnews
Via the DMS’s transportation blog, (which is doing a great job of following transportation issues this session):
Todd Gillman and I have a piece in this morning’s paper about a bill expected to be introduced today by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas. It would allow states like Texas whose residents pay more in federal gas taxes than is sent back to the state to opt out of the federal highway program. By doing so, it would allow Texas to keep all those funds here.
You can call it a mini-secession, I suppose. And it’s a move that should work to blunt some of Gov. Rick Perry’s criticisms of Hutchison that she has brought too little money back to Texas.
In the full article, (linked above), it becomes apparent that this is little more than a political ploy, that’s almost guaranteed not to pass and wouldn’t fix the problem of neglect of our transportation infrastructure. It probably won’t gain her much, if any support, from the far-right in Texas either.
Texas Transportation Commissioner Ned Holmes of Houston – a Perry appointee who supports Hutchison’s gubernatorial bid – said her approach addresses donor-state frustration but won’t solve the nation’s and Texas’ infrastructure challenges.
“If all we are doing is keeping the funding the same and pulling it from one state and giving it to another, then that is a pretty tough game to play,” he said.
A better approach, he said, would be for Congress to raise the gasoline tax, embrace tolls and other user fees for highways, and give states more flexibility about how they spend funds from Washington. But he doubts Congress and the president are eager to raise taxes for transportation.
“There needs to be more funding, period,” he said. “This is not just a big state, high-growth state problem.”
[...]
She’ll propose the bill today at a Senate hearing on national surface transportation policy, Sadosky said. But with 20 states benefiting from the current system, the bill’s prospects are unclear.
The prospects are very clear, it’s DOA. There’s not much new in this bill. Just another gimmick that does absolutely nothing to fix the issue of funding our infrastructure. In the blog post, it did point to the latest so-called “free-market”, aka toll everything group, that’s been created to try and sell privatization to US taxpayers, The Transportation Transformation Group. Check out who they are, (Investment banks; road construction, engineering and maintenance firms; State DOT’s; and Gov. Perry), as well as others that want to profit from these privatization schemes. It’s doubtful Sen. Hutchison can out “wing-nut” Perry, not sure why she’s even trying.
Permalink
Posted in 81st Legislature, Around The State, Money In Politics, The Lege at 9:02 am by wcnews
This article paints a pretty good picture of how lobbying works in the lege. Via the DMN, It’s the season for Legislature’s lobbyists.
“Special interests pay a lot of people a lot of money to look for those opportunities,” said [Former Speaker Pete Laney], who lobbies for electric and phone co-ops and an educational entity.
He said the state’s $16 billion share of federal economic stimulus money helped stoke the lobby’s interest this year in the budget.
It is not uncommon for powerful House members to submit – verbatim – budget amendments that lobbyists have handed them. The Senate discourages amendments when the full chamber debates the budget, taking them when the Finance Committee considers the bill instead.
In the House, Appropriations Committee Chairman Jim Pitts, R-Waxahachie, filed one of two amendments that would make the Transportation Department pay to move lines and cables for projects funded by the federal economic stimulus.
Pitts said he sponsored it at the urging of an ex-colleague now lobbying for AT&T – former Rep. Pat Haggerty, R-El Paso.
“I was just trying to help Pat out,” Pitts said.
However, he said Transportation Committee Chairman Joe Pickett, D-El Paso, strongly objected, arguing that it was an unjustified windfall for telecom firms, cable-TV companies and video service providers that could cost the state $100 million.
AT&T spokesman Kerry Hibbs said the Pitts amendment is needed because “we did not set aside money for such projects when planning our 2009 budget because back then, the federal stimulus didn’t exist.”
Hibbs indicated the economy may suffer if the state makes the companies pay – which is routine, unless the road is tolled or is an interstate highway, or if the cable or line was there before the road was built. He said telecom and cable companies might have to slow their capital improvements, such as expanded 3G wireless facilities, that he said would help speed economic growth
AT&T assembled a powerful lobbying corps to make those arguments. In addition to Haggerty, it included former Reps. Tony Goolsby, R-Dallas, and Mike Krusee, R-Round Rock, who was the House point man on transportation before Pickett.
Pitts, however, said he trusted the judgment of Pickett and withdrew the amendment. Rep. Drew Darby, R-San Angelo, a fellow budget writer who also filed an amendment making the Transportation Department pay for utility relocations, said he dropped his push because “it did not have the consent of Chairman Pitts.”
Although Darby wouldn’t say who brought the amendment to him, he said it wasn’t representatives of AT&T. He indicated pipeline companies would have benefited as well, though they weren’t mentioned in Pitts’ version.
In the Senate, Austin Democrat Kirk Watson is trying to attach an amendment similar to Pitts’ to the Transportation Department sunset bill.
“I’m just trying to have a discussion of the issue,” Watson said.
Pickett, though, said: “It would set a very bad precedent. They’re in our right of way at no charge. They should pay if they need to move.”
In some cases, corporations are forced to play defense – as with AT&T on a budget amendment by House Democratic leader Jim Dunnam of Waco.
Dunnam said he’s been trying since a telecom deregulation bill was enacted in 2005 to make the Public Utility Commission study whether video services classify neighborhoods by income and race to determine whether to offer service there. AT&T, though, denies it has ever engaged in the practice, known as “redlining.” Still, Dunnam said the company pressed him to withdraw his amendment, and he refused.
Hibbs, the AT&T spokesman, said the company wanted it pulled because it did not include cable companies. (Emphasis added).
Well at least former state representative Krusee has found work. Thanks to chairmem Pickett and Dunnam for standing up on these issues. It just goes to show how some legislators don’t see any problem with “helping” out an old colleague, and therefore a corporation, but there’s no mention of what that might cost the taxpayers of Texas.
Permalink
� Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »