Word is that Tony Rudy's plea agreement will implicate former DeLay Chief of Staff Ed Buckham, of US Family Network fame (see here, here, and here for more). From Bloomberg:
Supporting documents released with the plea agreement put a third former DeLay aide under scrutiny. While still working for DeLay, the documents said, Rudy received payments to a consulting firm he owned from Abramoff and "Lobbyist B,'" described in the documents as a former DeLay aide who founded his own lobby firm, which Rudy subsequently joined.That fits the description of former DeLay chief of staff Ed Buckham, founder of the now-defunct Alexander Strategy Group, which employed Rudy until earlier this year.
There's more on Rudy's plea agreement in that story, or you can read the TPMMuckraker summary. Buckham wasn't explicitly named, but as the Bloomberg story and Roll Call point out, the inference of his presence is pretty strong.
In his plea deal, which was publicly released after Rudy's formal guilty plea this morning, Rudy officially accuses Buckham - who is identified as "Lobbyist B" in the filings-— of helping set up $50,000 in payments to Rudy's wife's consulting firm in order to win Rudy's help in killing a bill that would have outlawed Internet gaming. Abramoff at the time was representing Internet gambling clients who wanted to keep the practice legal.While Buckham is not identified in the documents, they leave no doubt that his firm, Alexander Strategy Group, is "Firm 3."
In addition, the plea agreement says that Rudy, while working as deputy chief of staff for DeLay in 2000, arranged for other House staffers to travel to the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands and also secured appropriations money for the CNMI. The Marianas were a long-standing client of Abramoff's, but the court filings say that Rudy did this work "in part to assist Abramoff, his firm and Lobbyist B with their lobbying businesses."
Buckham and Abramoff were very close over the years - Abramoff steered donations from his clients into the coffers of nonprofits run by Buckham, such as the U.S. Family Network - and they did work together for some clients.
Buckham is considered the single closest adviser to DeLay, even having served as the lawmaker's minister.
After leaving DeLay's office, in addition to running the lobbying firm, Buckham maintained control of DeLay's political operations by effectively running his political action committee, Americans for a Republican Majority PAC, out of his lobbying firm.
TPMMuckraker discusses what a Buckham guilty plea might mean. Keep those seatbelts fastened.
HISD is taking the tougher stand they said they would with students who continue to skip class to protest immigration policies, while at the same time encouraging the students to find a more productive way to express themselves.
Just hours after 26 Houston Independent School District students were arrested for walking out of class to protest pending immigration legislation, community leaders urged young people to find better ways to express their feelings.The walkouts — which also landed 33 Dowling Middle School students and 34 from Madison High School with truancy citations Thursday — need to end, officials said.
"Your message has been heard loud and clear," school board President Diana Davila said. "We know what you're fighting for. We know what you believe in, and we now ask that you do it in a fashion where no one will get hurt, where the district won't have to suspend students."
HISD leaders made good on their promise to step up sanctions for students who protest but also asked students to find less disruptive ways to make their point.
They're encouraging informational meetings and letter-writing campaigns as alternative ways to share concerns about proposed immigration laws that could have far-reaching effects for their families and friends living in the United States.
"Everyone needs to make an effort to encourage our young people to remain in school," Superintendent Abelardo Saavedra said.
[...]
Though fewer students cut class Thursday, police said they had serious concerns about a group of 100 Madison High students found marching near the 1100 block of South Post Oak in the morning. They were on their way to recruit students from nearby Dowling Middle, police spokesman Capt. Dwayne Ready said.
"They are going from school to school, which is disrupting school activities," Ready said. "We have a safety issue present today that wasn't as present in the last few days."
This is appropriate. HISD was as tolerant of this week's activities as one could reasonably ask them to be, and at this point no one can say they didn't understand what the consequences for subsequent attempts to walk out would be. Protests like these are effective for getting attention to an issue, but that's about all they can do. The focus goes away when the protest breaks up, so it's time to move on to the next level.
Saavedra lauded the efforts of students at Lamar High School, where about 500 students gathered around the flagpole before classes began Thursday morning to discuss the legislation.Children said the peaceful rally was more effective than the walkouts without getting them into trouble.
"Today, instead of walking out of school, we all walked into school united, together — as students, as human beings," said Tina Marie Sanchez, 17, a junior at Lamar High.
Her classmate, Zelene Pineda, 17, said it's important for students to understand the finer points of the debate about the pending bills.
"We had seen the students being portrayed as ignorant and oblivious to the actual causes for the walkouts and the protests," she said.
"Walking out was not right. What we wanted to do was be smart about it."
Students are using Internet bulletins to promote weekly informational sessions around the school's flagpole.
Sharpstown and Reagan high school students have said they're planning peaceful rallies after school today. A group called Young Immigrants for a Better Future is also planning a candlelight vigil at 7 p.m. today at 6601 Hillcroft, the offices of CRECEN, an immigrant rights organization.
"We have to do something so Congress can feel the pressure, but we have to do something in an organized manner," said Ivonne Moreira, 21, executive director of the group. "There's ways to do things, not just go crazy."
That's exactly right. More power to you, and may you accomplish the goals you work for.
And we now have two ex-DeLay staffers pleading guilty to felony charges.
Tony Rudy, a former aide to Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land, will plead guilty today to one count in connection with the ongoing federal investigation of the activities of disgraced former lobbyist Jack Abramoff, according to law enforcement officials.The plea from Rudy, who served as DeLay's deputy chief of staff, comes two days after Abramoff was sentenced to 70 months in prison for fraud in connection with the purchase of a casino-boat company in Miami.
The details of Rudy's plea were not yet available.
[...]
Former DeLay spokesman Michael Scanlon, who was an Abramoff business partner, has also pleaded guilty to fraud charges in that case.
[...]
DeLay has denied knowledge of his former employees' activities. DeLay attorney Richard Cullen has said that the Justice Department has not approached the lawmaker seeking information or cooperation.
I'll say this again: There's been a lot of baying and yapping in some blogs here over the activities of former Mayor Pro Tem Carol Alvarado's staff, and how she should have known about their improper activities (as no one has yet been charged with a crime, it's premature to call anything "illegal" in this situation). If Alvarado should have known what kind of shenanigans her staff was up to, and if she should be held responsible in some way for not exerting more control over them - just so we're all clear here, I agree that she should have known and that she bears responsibility for not knowing - then shouldn't the same standard be applied to Tom DeLay and his felonious employees? For some strange reason, I've not seen nearly as much electronic ink expended on that topic. I wonder why that is.
UPDATE: More about Mike Scanlon than Tony Rudy, but let this be a lesson to every man who's ever considered dumping his fiancee for a 24-year-old waitress. Link via Wampum.
UPDATE: Turns out that this story was first reported by Jason Leopold in The Raw Story back in January. You would not know that from the WSJ piece. I have to agree with Jason and with Jeralyn that it was wrong on the WSJ's part to not acknowledge Jason's earlier work.
As The Jeffersonian reminds us, today is the end of the quarter, so if you've been planning to make a donation to your favorite candidate, today is a great day to do it. He's got a suggested list of Congressional candidates to consider, all of whom are worth your time to look. I'd add a couple more to his list:
Mary Beth Harrell in CD31 - see Eye on Williamson for more.
David Harris in CD06, who has been writing about immigration and national security lately.
In Harris County, there's Gary Binderim in CD02, Jim Henley in CD07, and Ted Ankrum, who still has a runoff to win, in CD10. And of course the statewide candidates - BAR, Chris Bell, David Van Os, and so on. Whether you have any of these folks in mind or someone else, today's the day to make it happen.
Matt brings us a message from John Courage to anti-immigrant Congressman Lamar Smith, who continues to be out of the mainstream on the subject. Check it out.
Courage will be the beneficiary of a fundraiser headlined by Senator Russ Feingold in April. If you're in Austin and you want to support a good candidate, there's a fine opportunity for you. If you don't want to wait that long, there's also Matt's house party tonight in San Antonio. Every little bit helps.
Seven votes makes the difference.
A recount of ballots today confirmed that County Court-at-Law No. 9 Judge Oscar Kazen will serve a single term after all, and will be replaced next year by political newcomer Laura Salinas."'Landslide Laura' wins by seven votes," Salinas joked following the recount.
Out of about 35,000 votes cast, she got seven more votes than Kazen in the March 7 Democratic primary. Because there is no Republican candidate for the bench, Salinas is virtually assured to become the next judge for that court.
"The ballots really were very clean," Bexar County Elections Administrator Jacque Callanen said. "I think (the recount) put everybody's mind at ease."
[...]
Kazen, whose family has been steeped in South Texas politics, held a dozen-vote lead over Salinas on election night. But that evaporated when mail-in and provisional ballots were counted six days later; Salinas came out on top by one vote.
A tally of overseas ballots last week increased the 34-year-old family and criminal law attorney's lead to six votes. The recount added one more to her total.
Seven lousy votes. Remember that the next time someone tells you that it just doesn't matter. For more background, see The Jeffersonian, Just Another Matt, and Larry for the Lege.
In other recount news, Carter Casteel's deficit is now fifty-one votes, with two counties still to be re-done. That was always a longshot, but again, with such a small difference, you have to doublecheck. And you know, once again, every vote counts. Link via BOR.
On an unrelated note, I fully expected the Dems to lose State Sen. Ken Armbrister's seat this November. I just didn't expect it to happen by forfeit. Cripes. Link via PinkDome.
NASA says that when their administrator whispered sweet nothings about Tom DeLay in front of an audience, it wasn't really an endorsement.
Five days after NASA administrator Michael Griffin urged a Houston audience to keep U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay in office, a spokesman denied Wednesday that Griffin had made a formal campaign endorsement."The space program has had no better friend in its entire existence than Tom DeLay," Griffin said Friday of DeLay's legislative support of the agency. "He's still with us and we need to keep him there."
With DeLay present, Griffin spoke at the annual Space Center Rotary Club of Houston's nonprofit National Award for Space Achievement Foundation gala.
Griffin had no intention of soliciting votes for the 11-term lawmaker, NASA spokesman Dean Acosta said.
"He did not make an endorsement and will not get involved in any political campaigns," Acosta said. "If his words of thanks to Tom DeLay were misconstrued as an endorsement, then he regrets that."
Uh huh. And why does this matter?
Under the Hatch Act, executive branch employees such as Griffin are permitted to express an opinion, campaign and make speeches for or against candidates in partisan elections — when they are off-duty.The black-tie awards dinner at which Griffin made his remarks was held after regular working hours, but Griffin was representing the space agency and giving an award to a NASA employee, astronaut Eileen Collins.
Griffin's travel to Houston from Washington, D.C., for the dinner was paid by NASA rather than the Rotary Club, said event organizer Floyd Bennett of the United Space Alliance.
The independent Office of Special Counsel, which administers the Hatch Act, will investigate the matter, spokesman Loren Smith said.
Employees who violate the Hatch Act can be removed from office, according to the Office of Special Counsel, or suspended without pay.
It's like there's a vortex around DeLay that causes everyone around him to do things that get them in trouble.
Christof tells us about an unused right-of-way inside Loop 610 called the Eureka Corridor and some currently languishing plans to turn it into a bike trail. The nifty part of this is a proposal by the White Oak Bayou Association (WOBA) to connect it to some existing bike trails in the Heights, Oak Forest, and all the way out to Memorial Park. WOBA is holding a meeting tonight (Thursday, March 30) at 7:30 PM to discuss this - send an email to their VP Linda Mercer at EurekaRedHawks@yahoo.com if you're interested.
This seems like a win-win to me: it's cheap, it's a great feature to help make Houston more attractive to people who might relocate here, and if implemented in this fashion it would give people another non-car option for getting to work downtown. What's not to like? Check it out, and let your City Council member know what you think - the area in question encompasses Council Districts A (Toni Lawrence (713) 247-2010) and H (Adrian Garcia (713) 247-2003).
Earlier than expected, but here's the analysis by the Center for Public Policy Priorities (PDF) of the Texas Tax Reform Commission's finance plan.
First, the proposal is a net tax cut. We had urged a plan that increased revenue; the Governor had asked for a plan that was revenue neutral; but the commission delivered a plan that reduces revenue by using some of the so-called surplus in this biennium to replace property tax revenue.[…]
Our present revenue system is inadequate to meet our needs. The commission’s plan makes it more so.
Second, the commission’s plan, contrary to early reports, is not less regressive than our current tax structure. Texas has the fifth most regressive tax system in the United States, meaning that those with less income pay a greater percentage of their income in state and local taxes than those with more income. Under the commission’s plan, every income group gets a tax cut, but that is because the plan reduces revenue, not because the plan reduces regressivity. Indeed, as the equity note shows, using the new business tax, along with some of the so-called surplus, to cut property taxes gives the biggest tax breaks to those with the highest incomes—actually increasing the regressivity of the Texas tax system, a step backwards for low- and middle-income Texans.
[...]
Third, we are concerned about whether this new tax base has the same growth potential as the property tax. We await a fiscal note that will indicate future revenue growth. It is unlikely, however, that the new tax will grow fast enough both to keep up with what the property tax would have produced and replace the revenue lost from the net tax reduction.
On the positive side, the commission may have designed the best business tax proposed to date. This new tax may be the basis for legislation during the upcoming special session that Texans can applaud. To draw applause, however, any proposal must 1) put more revenue on the table; 2) increase fairness, or at least not make things significantly worse; and 3) meet our future needs with growth that is equal to or greater than the growth from the property tax it replaces.
Link via Eye on Williamson, which has a snazzy new location and look - be sure to update your bookmarks.
Lots more reaction from various business groups and other stakeholders here. There's too much to reasonably excerpt, so go read it all. Right now, there's a lot of waiting-and-seeing, with a generally positive if not enthusiastic undertone.
Vince does some interpretation of the report, and notes that it's basically the same as a proposal from 2002 by the Joint Select Committee On Public School Finance. What's interesting is that the JSCOPSF report (PDF) also addressed education reform as well as school finance and tax reform, something the TTRC did not do. Vince has some excerpts comparing the two reports, so go see for yourself.
Finally, Aaron Pena went on a local radio show to give his impressions of the TTRC report. RGV Life gives a summary of that discussion.
Hey, remember when the state of Texas was going full speed ahead on the privatization of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (THHSC) even though the federal government had official concerns about its ability to deliver the services it's obligated to do? According to Father John, those fears were well founded.
But the real shocker was a report that applicants who do not get a receipt for their applications can kiss those applications good bye, they no longer being processed, but they are being boxed and sent to the warehouse. I guess if the applicant is too absent minded due to his hunger pangs, and does not bother to get a receipt, then he can not prove that he filed the application to begin with, and if he can not prove it, then he or she did not do it.I truly and sincerely hope that this report is not accurate, for I am sure that boxing applications and sending them to the warehouse is illegal. During my tenure at HHSC-DHS they made sure to let us know that mishandling, and falsifying state documents is a crime, now it appears that it has become agency policy.
That's from Samm Almaguer, who like Father John is now a former employee of THHSC. Father John also says that the recent decline in the number of Texas children insured by Medicaid is due to the staffing shortage at THHSC, which was the result of the layoffs done to get the private contractors installed. Note too that the enrollment decline goes back farther than that story suggests. All this without any real cost savings like we were promised. What a deal.
We all got a good schadenfreudistic laugh out of Tom DeLay's gun woes, but I was curious about the provision in that law that called for the suspension of a concealed-carry license (CCL) for a person under a felony indictment. I sent an inquiry to then-State Senator, now Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson and wound up having a pleasant chat with him about it. I'm not the world's best note-taker, but here's what I got from the conversation:
- While the CCL bill was passed in 1995, there had been previous attempts to do so going back to 1989. A gutted version of the bill was passed in 1993 that called for a nonbinding referendum, but it was vetoed by then-Gov. Ann Richards. The suspension requirement that tripped up DeLay is something that was a part of the bill all through its history, and he agreed when I suggested that it came from a "tough on crime" mindset that was more than what was needed for these purposes.
- Many people and groups played a role in putting together the bill - Commissioner Patterson cited DPS as having a big part in it. Patterson's goal in 1995 was to remove what he thought were "onerous" provisions from the earlier attempts that would have placed a bigger burden on potential handgun carriers. The amount of training required for a CCL was an example of such a provision.
- Patterson eventually wrote the bill himself longhand on a legal pad in his kitchen. He said he tried to balance the concerns everyone had in order to get a bill that could pass.
- He believes that in the end, he gave up too much in getting that bill passed; he believes that he'd have still had the votes to pass it even if he'd held firmer on some of the concessions he made to this person or that's need to position himself politically on the bill.
- The aformentioned suspension-for-felony-indictment provision is an example of something he'd have done differently if he had it to do over again. While he would have included that for "assaultive" felonies, he did not think that the broad-based suspension requirement was fair. We agreed that the only reason it's getting attention now is because of the high profile of Tom DeLay.
I want to add that I opposed this bill in 1995. I thought it would lead to more opportunistic gun violence. That has not happened, a point Patterson makes in an op-ed he wrote (PDF) to commemorate the law's tenth anniversary. My thinking on the issue of guns and gun control has evolved over the years. I found that I could not reconcile my strong belief in personal freedom for things like reproductive choice with a belief in the need to restrict gun ownership. So, I changed. I can't say I like guns, but as with abortion, that doesn't mean I think someone else should be forbidden to have access to them.
My thanks to Jerry Patterson for his feedback on this.
Five years and ten months for Casino Jack.
U.S. District Judge Paul C. Huck sentenced Abramoff, 47, and his former partner, Adam R. Kidan, 41, to the shortest possible prison terms under sentencing guidelines in the case. In pleading for the minimum sentence, lawyers for each defendant laid most of the blame on the other for the scam, in which they faked a $23 million wire transfer to obtain financing for the 2000 purchase of SunCruz Casinos from an owner who was later shot to death in a gangland-style hit."As you can imagine, this day is incredibly painful for my family, my friends and me," Abramoff told the judge. "Over the past two years, I have started the process of becoming a new man."
[...]
Although Huck opted for the minimum, Abramoff faces the prospect of at least a few additional years in prison when he is sentenced in a separate case in Washington, D.C. However, lawyers said, his overall sentence ultimately could be reduced depending on his cooperation with federal investigators.
[...]
In the Washington case, Abramoff pleaded guilty in January to federal charges of fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy to bribe public officials. His plea deal with federal prosecutors in that case required him to cooperate with a broad federal investigation of corruption involving members of Congress, congressional staffers, other lobbyists and employees of the Interior Department and other federal agencies.
Among the congressmen whose names have come up in the probe are Rep. Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio), former chairman of the House Administration Committee, and Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), the former House majority leader. Ney has been identified as the "Representative #1" who, according to court documents, received bribes from Abramoff in exchange for official acts, including congressional statements that promoted the SunCruz deal during contentious purchase negotiations. DeLay, who once described Abramoff as "one of my closest and dearest friends," took three overseas trips with the lobbyist and received more than $70,000 in political contributions from him, his associates and his Native American tribal clients. Ney and DeLay have denied any wrongdoing.
So, the main point to remember here is that this is not the Washington case; that investigation, and presumably Abramoff's cooperation in it, is ongoing. I've got a link to the original SunCruz story here, and Julia has a metric boatload of supplemental links. One last point, from The Stakeholder: Among the stubborn handful of Congressfolk who have refused to return Abramoff's donations to them is our own Rep. Ron Paul. Perhaps someone should ask him about this.
The Lone Star Project has an interesting analysis of the Governor's race, in which its basic thesis is that Chris Bell really does have a clearer path to a win than Carole Keeton Strayhorn. Not an easy path, mind you, but a clearer one. I'll defer any deep thoughts on this for now, but here are a couple of quick comments:
1. I think the Democratic base vote is higher than what they use in their model. George Bush was the top votegetter just about everywhere for the Republicans, and John Kerry trailed all Democrats most places. I'd go with something between David Van Os' 41% and JR Molina's 42%. Not that it makes that much difference, and if there's a winning scenario with this harsher environment that's even more encouraging, I just think that's overly pessimistic.
2. The LSP projection is largely in agreement with this Fox 7 Austin analysis (video link) that suggests a 35-35 photo finish between Bell and Perry and also suggests Strayhorn has a tougher row to hoe than is currently being suggested. (Screen cap from the video here.)
3. We don't have any post-primary polling yet; what we had from February was two contradictory results, one from Rasmussen that suggested Strayhorn was already in a tight race with Perry, and one from the Dallas Morning News that had Strayhorn trailing Bell. I still think that Rasmussen has been oversampling Republicans, and if I were to guess, I'd say the real picture now is more like the DMN poll. As I say, though, that's just my guess.
4. However you slice it, this just reinforces my belief that the prominent Dems who have been backing Strayhorn so far are running away from a winnable race. If we enter October with multiple polls showing Strayhorn and Perry neck and neck with Bell a distant third, then I can understand a tactical switch. Doing so now is craven and shortsighted.
More later. Read their piece and see what you think of it.
As I read about the snarled traffic on US59 approaching the newly-reopened Spur 527, I have to ask: Am I the only one who remembers what this stretch of road was like before the construction?
Some drivers said they saw little improvement in the traffic situation. Persistent rain Tuesday didn't help.Several trips through the trouble spot showed that the two left lanes consistently made the best time, which may explain part of the problem.
Speeds there seldom dipped below 20 mph while traffic in the two right lanes was stop-and-go.
That raises a suspicion that some drivers in the right lanes are merging to the left to make better time, then merging back to the right to avoid having to exit onto the spur.
A suspicion? Dude, that's exactly what people did in the old days, and for exactly the same reason: there were far fewer cars that actually took the spur than there were cars continuing north on 59, so people got in the left lanes and stayed for as long as they could before squeezing/forcing their way over. The only difference that I can see now is that there are fewer lanes overall right now - one left lane has been lost to the not-yet-opened HOV, and one right lane is still closed due to unfinished work on the Main Street exit.
And as Christof points out in the link above, even if the Shepherd-to-spur section had been widened, you'd still run into a bottleneck just past it where the exits to 288 and I-45 are. Both of those ramps can and do back up onto 59, which is obviously a problem, and speaking as someone who takes 288 north to the Pierce Elevated most days from work, 59 is still plenty crowded once you get past those exits, too.
Now if there's a significant number of people who are coming this way to get to I-45, and if a lot of them figure out that they can get there via the spur (and avoid that nasty bottleneck-by-design Pierce Elevated onramp), then maybe the load at this juncture will lessen a bit. Certainly getting the HOV in play, and reclaiming the lane lost to the Main Street exit work will go a long way, too. But for now, all I can say is: Honestly, what did you expect?
The Texas Tax Reform Commission (TTRC) plan is set to be unveiled today, and it starts with a shot of good publicity thanks to a Legislative Budget Board analysis that paints it as a tax cut for all income levels.
The analysis represents a dramatic change from last year, when the budget board reported that other tax-swap proposals floated in the Legislature would impose tax increases on all but those Texans at the highest income levels.Lawmakers blamed the disparity in those plans on hefty cigarette-tax increases, as well as increases in the the general sales tax. People who earn less generally spend a larger percentage of their money on those taxes. Perry's panel will not recommend a sales-tax increase.
"Our committee spent a heck of a lot of time trying to make sure that the tax was not regressive, and so far we're pleased with what we see," former Comptroller John Sharp, chairman of Perry's tax commission, told the American-Statesman this afternoon.
The plan would put the largest tax cuts at the top of the income scale, with households making more than $146,804 seeing a 3.3 percent tax cut and those making between $104,865 and $146,804 seeing a 2.8 percent tax cut.
Households making less than $14,042 would see a 1.4 percent tax cut, and those between $14,042 and $23,872 would see a 0.9 percent cut.
That certainly is a world better than last year's debacle. I've got some concerns, which I'll address in a minute, but first, bear in mind that the LBB analysis is not for everyone.
Smokers would be net losers under the proposal, but Perry has said, in recent speeches, that a higher cigarette tax could encourage a healthier lifestyle.The tobacco tax increase, which would hit poorer smokers harder, was omitted from the analysis, because it would have had a negative impact on the overall projected savings.
The tax equity note also doesn't differentiate between homeowners and renters, many of whom are in the lowest income categories and may or may not receive pass-throughs of property tax savings from their landlords.
Yes, if you smoke, all we can say is thanks for shouldering a bigger part of the burden. I'd be very interested to see what the analysis would look like without this omission. You'd have to make assumptions about how much an individual smoked, but surely it would be easy enough to factor it for (say) one pack a day smokers versus two pack a day smokers.
And of course, the problem with depending on a higher tobacco tax is right there in Rick Perry's words: This tax will provide an incentive for people to quit, or at least cut back on, their cigarette habits. That's good news for them, and good news overall for the state of Texas, but bad news for the budget. It's folly to depend on such a volatile revenue source for anything other than activities directly related to that source. We're in denial if we think that a dollar increase in the tobacco tax will be a stable part of the school finance picture.
As for the point about renters, that was the reason why the previous year's tax-swap plan was such a loser for lower-income folks. Their main burden is the sales tax, so reductions to other taxes won't affect them as much. The only real way to give those folks tax relief is to lower the sales tax rate, which some people still want to do:
Sen. Kyle Janek, R-Houston, said he was "dubious" of the business tax proposal.Janek, a physician who would have to pay a business tax for the first time under the commission's proposal, said he would prefer to expand the sales tax to business services instead and possibly lower the sales tax rate.
Janek said he prefers sales taxes because they are consumption-based.
I'm still a little mystified as to why there hasn't been more support for expanding the sales tax to business services. In theory, at least, it would have the same political pros and cons as the TTRC business tax; certainly, the opposition it got from various service industries and the resultant Swiss cheese proposal that died with all the other plans testify to that. If someone like Sen. Janek really pushes for that idea in April, it will be interesting to see who lines up behind what plan.
An article forwarded to me from the Quorum Report indicates that the main stakeholders of the tax plan - the business lobby, school districts and poverty advocates - are still in wait-and-see mode right now. Look for an analysis by the Center for Public Policy Priorities on Friday to see where they stand. One point about the schools:
School districts are looking at portion of the bill on meaningful discretion. Lynn Moak of Moak Casey & Associates says the 6 cents per-year discretion is generous given previous offers made in prior legislation. Rollbacks appear to be calculated on last year's tax rate, plus 6 cents, rather than last year's revenue-per-student, plus 6 cents, which gives fast-growth school districts a bit more room for tax rate growth. That kind of latitude is going to be considered a plus by the school districts.The immediate revenue generated under the bill, minus the business tax, would give school districts the chance to roll back to $1.33 per hundred dollar valuation the first year. Once the business tax kicks in, it would be $1 the second year. That could be a short-term fix. Long term, Moak says that inflation is likely to eat up a significant portion of the new tax capacity, which is likely to put school districts back at the $1.50 cap. To fully address the Supreme Court's mandate for meaningful discretion -- and, more specifically, long-term meaningful discretion --
will mean adjustments to the finance formula, Moak said. Tinkering with the formula would mean opening up the call on the session. That's not likely to happen, if Perry can help it.At least two more actions are necessary to get long-term relief from this court challenge, Moak said. First, the Legislature needs to define and fund a "general diffusion of knowledge," as stated in the state Constitution. And, second, the funding formula must account for inflation. Otherwise, any gains will be eaten away by increased costs.
Remember that things like rising gasoline prices hit schools in the pocketbook, too, and they have less flexibility to react to such unaccounted for cost increases thanks to various mandates like NCLB. Remember too that the public school system grows by something like 75,000 students a year in Texas, and that any viable school funding plan has to plan for that. The plan that Governor Perry has in mind is revenue-neutral, which does not do that. The TTRC plan is a good start, but we're still a long way from done.
There were student walkouts in Dallas and Fort Worth yesterday along with those in Houston and elsewhere around the country. That will probably be the end of that type of activity - as Stace notes, the party line from school administrators appears to be that while these demonstrations will leave students subject to discipline at the discretion of school principals, any further such walkouts will bring harsher sanctions.
I'm okay with this. It's appropriate for the students to be held responsible for the work they missed, and it's appropriate for them to be subject to normal school rules for having an unexcused absence. As long as schools do not seek to single out students they identify as ringleaders, I support this action. Accepting the consequences for civil disobedience has always been a part of that tactic. The message has been sent and received, now it's time to channel that energy into other avenues, like writing to Congress members and registering to vote.
On a tangential note, this Statesman story talks about how the immigration issue is playing out in some campaigns so far. I found this chart of the positions taken by gubernatorial candidates to be enlightening:
Gov. Rick Perry (R)Calls for more federal aid to border law enforcement.
Chris Bell (D)
Supports legislation approved by U.S. Senate panel ordaining more border security and allowing illegal immigrants to become legal residents.
Carole Keeton Strayhorn (I)
Supports more border and port security law enforcement aid and allowing U.S. citizens, including such groups as the Minutemen, working with officers to combat illegal crossings.
Kinky Friedman (I)
Favors expansion of border fencing and supports legislation approved by U.S. Senate committee ordaining more border security and allowing illegal immigrants to become legal. Also favors creation of guest worker program.
Yes, Carole Keeton Strayhorn appears to be running to Rick Perry's right on this. Maybe someone should call Tony Sanchez and let him know about it. And just as a reminder, here is what Kinky Friedman said about "expansion of border fencing".
One last thing: Here's a picture from Dallas for those of you who mentioned flags yesterday.
UPDATE: Today's Chron coverage is here, here, and here. There's also blog coverage from Aaron Pena, Latinos for Texas, South Texas Chisme, and of course Dos Centavos.
Bagwell insurance claim denied.
Lawyers for Astros owner Drayton McLane and Connecticut General Life Insurance are bracing for litigation over Connecticut General's decision to deny the total disability claim the Astros filed to recoup $15.6 million of disabled first baseman Jeff Bagwell's salary this year.Acknowledging that pain in his arthritic right shoulder had become too great, Bagwell went on the 15-day disabled list on Saturday. Twelve days earlier, Connecticut General had already denied the Astros' insurance claim.
"On March 13, 2006, Connecticut General Life Insurance Co. notified the Houston Astros that it had denied a total disability claim submitted by the Astros relating to Jeff Bagwell," said attorney Ty Buthod, a partner at the Houston law firm of Baker Botts, which is representing Connecticut General. "The company determined that there had been no adverse change in Mr. Bagwell's condition or ability to play baseball between the end of last season, when he was an active member of the roster, and Jan. 31, 2006, the date the policy expired.
"The company carefully reviewed the claim as submitted by the Astros and determined that the claim did not support a finding of total disability."
McLane disagrees, and he vows to pursue legal recourse to collect on his claim.
Clearly, what we need here is some tort reform. Or maybe insurance reform. It's all so confusing. Where's Joe Nixon when you really need him?
I suppose the Stros will claim that since Bagwell did play in the World Series but obviously cannot play now, that's proof enough that his condition changed adversely. The insurers will say that since he could still play again after more surgery, this is a temporary setback and not a certain career-ender. I can see merit to both arguments. My best wishes and a bottle of Excedrin to the judge that catches this one.
I know that when the vast majority of the public thinks about blogs and bloggers (at least, the vast majority of that tiny slice of the public that knows who and what we are), words like "Cheetoes" and "Jolt cola" are often involved. Well, via Julia, I'm pleased to tell you that some bloggers at least have perfectly viable culinary skills. See for yourself in And They Cook, Too, which is not just a cookbook but also a fundraiser for Doctors Without Borders. A listing of the recipes within is here, some sample pages are here (PDF), and you can order this baby here for the everyday low price of $15. Bon appetit!
I confess, what with all the Domeneching recently, I'd not heard of the case of ESPN Radio personality Colin Cowherd and the charges that he'd reada humor piece from a Michigan Wolverines fan blog called the M Zone on the air without attribution. Salon's King Kaufman gives the basic story, noting that this generated a lot less outrage than Cut 'n' Paste Ben. Cowherd ultimately apologized and gave credit to the M Zone bloggers, at which point all was forgiven.
For what it's worth, I have a suspicion that the reason this got paid less attention than L'Affaire de Ben is that it's not exactly unheard of for radio DJs to read stuff they got off the Internet and/or via email (usually stuff from the Internet that's been forwarded to everyone in creation). The longstanding humor site TopFive.com has made a running joke about being ripped off by Wacky Morning DJ types for years. I think as much as anything, no one was all that shocked by this. Maybe now it'll be different, I don't know. I kind of doubt it, though.
Tom DeLay is fighting to get his gun back after his concealed carry license was suspended due to his felony indictment.
Under a Texas law passed in 1995, a license may be suspended if the holder is charged with a Class A or Class B misdemeanor or indicted on felony charges.[...]
The author of the original bill, Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson, who was a state senator, said the section of law calling for suspension of licenses of people under indictment should probably be removed from the statute.
"It is clearly not rational, not called for, but it was one of those things we did to make somebody say, 'OK, I'll vote for it,' " Patterson said Monday.
Patterson said several provisions were put in the bill by backers in order to garner support from other lawmakers who were leery about the law.
Patterson said since the bill's passage more than a decade ago, legislators have amended the statute and removed some of the parts he called "onerous."
"There is a presumption of innocence. Would we take away his First Amendment right to free speech?" Patterson said.
I'm always amused at how the git-tuff-on-crime crowd can find religion on the subject of presumed innocence when one of their own is on the court docket. Perhaps DeLay can make felony indictees' rights his new crusade if he survives his reelection fight in November.
Out of curiosity, I surfed through the Chronicle archives to see if there were any news reports about this particular provision of the law from the 1995 legislative session when it was adopted. There may have been some heartburn about suspending licenses for indicted felons behind the scenes, but I couldn't find anything about it in the actual news stories. Here's how the bill appeared as it passed out of the Senate committee.
The proposed law would allow adults who have never been convicted of a felony or are not facing criminal charges to apply to the Texas Department of Public Safety for a permit to carry a handgun every day.They would have to submit to criminal background checks and take handgun proficiency training in courses developed by the DPS.
That's about the only mention of "not facing criminal charges" - i.e., not being under indictment like a certain former House Majority Leader - that I found. And that's not because the bill passed quietly and uncontroversially. Beyond the expected opposition, some other aspects of this bill caused a stir. For example, the list of exceptions to where you could carry a concealed handgun, and the fight over limiting background checks - Patterson is quoted in one article that he "doesn't want to let the criminals know" who might be packing heat.
The bill passed Senate after these battles were fought, then a slightly different version passed out of the House committee and eventually the full House. Here's how its restrictions were reported:
To be eligible, a person must be at least 21, of sound mind, free of felony convictions and have no history of substance abuse. An applicant must also have no convictions for a Class A or B misdemeanor in the preceding five years or a Class C misdemeanor for simple assault. They also cannot ever have been convicted of a Class A or B misdemeanor involving the use of a handgun.
No mention of being under a felony indictment, though that provision was either there all along or added back when its final version was passed in the Senate. All I'm saying here is that this particular provision could not have been that controversial.
Now having said that, I agree with Commissioner Patterson that a blanket ban like that serves no rational purpose. Suspending a CCL as a condition of bail makes sense, but let's be honest: Tom DeLay is no less a menace to public safety without his gun than he normally is. The law is what it is, however, and I see no reason why he should get any special treatment. If there's a reason permitted in the statute to un-suspend his license before his trial then fine, but if not, let him act like any other aggrieved citizen and petition his State Rep to change the existing law.
Some breaking news here: I just got a phone call from Melissa Noriega, who tells me that students from Stephen F. Austin High School have walked out of classes and are moving through downtown, possibly towards the immigration court, though she couldn't tell for sure. They were approaching the Toyota Center as Melissa called me.
Be that as it may, Melissa tells me there are about 20 police and constable cars accompanying the kids. She spoke to an officer who says they're just there to keep the kids safe from traffic. They have no plans to interfere with what they're doing.
I'll post updates as I hear more. I checked the various local news sites before starting to write this but haven't seen anything there yet. If you happen to be in the area and see anything, please leave a comment or drop me a note (kuff - at - offthekuff - dot - com). As Melissa said to me, "One thing we learned from the civil rights movement is that the more people who are watching as events unfold, the safer it is for everyone involved."
UPDATE: Stace has more, including word that students from other schools are also marching downtown.
UPDATE: Local news coverage from KHOU and the Chron.
UPDATE: Calling again from Navigation and 71st, Melissa reports there are about 1000 students from Milby who have walked out and are headed towards City Hall. There's a school bus behind them, which school officials (riding on a John Deere vehicle of some kind, with a video camera to try and record who's there) are pleading in vain for the students to get on and get back to class. This group is apparently better organized than some of the earlier groups - they have banners, and a number of the kids are wearing US flag bandanas.
There are a lot of kids who were brought to the US as babies or toddlers by their parents, and only know America as their home. They're in a kind of legal limbo, and are very upset at the idea that some people want to send them "back" to a place they've never really lived. It's amazing to watch this all go on. It feels like the start of something big.
UPDATE: Some audio from KHOU, while the Chron story I linked before looks like it has more in it now.
Melissa phoned again to say that it's raining where they are, near the original Ninfa's on Navigation. Some of the kids have on blue rain slickers like you wear in marching band during inclement weather. As a lifelong band geek, I approve of that.
Apparently, there's a Family Dollar store across the street from Ninfa's. As the kids walked past there, some folks came out of that store with yellow raincoats and umbrellas for the kids. We think that was the store manager who did that - whoever it was, it was mighty kind of them.
UPDATE: Pictures, kindly sent to me by Sergio and Tiffany D (Stace also has them):
Austin High School students on Polk Street, east of downtown.
Austin High School students still on Polk Street, passing Frankels' Costume Co.
Ralph Reed is in the clear in Travis County because the statute of limitations has run out. He had been under investigation by County Attorney David Escamilla that he had violated Texas law by not registering as a lobbyist.
Mr. Escamilla said the two-year statute of limitations had run out on the issues raised against Mr. Reed, but he added that the county attorney's office would continue to review information that might become available.The case stemmed from Mr. Reed having received $4.2 million in 2001 and 2002 from disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, according to memos and e-mails that surfaced during a Senate investigation. Subsequently, Mr. Abramoff has pleaded guilty to tax fraud and conspiracy.
Mr. Reed apparently was paid for contacting public officials in the attorney general's and governor's offices and urging them to close Indian casinos in Texas. Mr. Abramoff was representing Louisiana tribes that did not want the Texas competition.
Mr. Reed also contacted State Board of Education members in 2002 on behalf of in-school TV network Channel One.
In December 2005, three public-interest groups – Common Cause, Public Citizen and Texans for Public Justice – filed a complaint with the county attorney against Mr. Reed, saying that Mr. Reed was a high-paid lobbyist but one who never registered with the Texas Ethics Commission – a possible Class A misdemeanor.
"The information presented by the complainants raises legitimate questions concerning Mr. Reed's activities and possible violation of Texas law," Mr. Escamilla said.
But without evidence of lobbying activity within the last two years, "I cannot justify initiating a formal criminal investigation given the statute of limitations," he said.
Oh, well. Background on this can be found here, here, and here. Thanks to TPM Muckraker for the catch.
Via Greg in TX22 and Right of Texas comes the news that the Libertarian Party has a candidate with some name recognition to run in CD22: Bob Smither.
The engineering consultant is known for the tragic case that involved the kidnapping and murder of his daughter Laura Smither. The 12-year-old Friendswood girl was out for a jog in April 1997 when she was abducted.Her body was found a 17 days later in a pond not far from her home.
Smither and his wife, Gay, helped found the Laura Recovery Center, a nationally recognized center that helps search for missing children. The center also serves as a national advocate for laws to keep children safe.
I remember this well, as do many people in Friendswood, I'm sure. You can get more background on Laura Smither here.
Uncommon as it is to get a Libertarian candidate that regular people will have heard of, I don't expect Bob Smither to do any better than the norm for LP candidates, which is about 2% in races that feature both major parties. As with Steve Stockman, I expect any support he gets above the usual baseline will come from Tom DeLay, though in this case perhaps not exclusively. In any event, I doubt we'll hear much more about this campaign.
One more point. Greg observes the following from the article:
DeLay is bleeding, yet he seems to be going to the friendliest of venues. The Sugar Land Rotary Club. GOP District meetings. He kind of reminds me of a basketball team sitting on a lead, just hoping that the clock will run out. Will this strategy work, or will DeLay start trying to convince some less friendly people (like me) that he is deserving of a vote?
DeLay is shoring up his base because he needs to. As I've noted several times before, he has underperformed in every way you can measure in CD22, not just in 2004 but also in 2002, back before all his current troubles began. He can't afford any more erosion of his base, whether they defect to Lampson, cast protest votes with Stockman or Smither, or just skip this race and go on to the next one. Eighty percent Republican support isn't enough for DeLay.
So yes, he wants people like Greg to love him again. He needs them to. He can't win without them.
Galveston's Judge Susan Criss has an interesting op-ed on the process she goes through in reviewing plea bargains that come before her. I've reproduced the piece beneath the fold because the Galveston News site is highly transitory. The background on the case is here.
The case involves a man accused of sexually assaulting a girl, 6, in 2002. Miles Whittington, Criss' Republican opponent in the November election, represents Casey Lynn Spence, charged in the case.Criss said politics were not a factor in her rejection of the plea.
"It was just too lenient for the facts alleged," she said.
Whittington declined to comment because the case was still pending.
The agreement called for Spence to plead guilty and receive 10 years' probation.
During the Monday morning hearing, during which she rejected the agreement, Spence told Criss that he was asking her to recuse herself from the case because he did not believe she would be fair with him.
Criss Monday afternoon told The Daily News that she understood why a defendant would feel that way, but said she treated everyone fairly.
"I don’t transfer the political atmosphere into my courtroom," she said.
Later, another judge approved the plea bargain, which generated some outrage in the community and a reminder from the editorial page that judges don't make plea bargains. Which in turn prompted Judge Criss' response. Got all that?
Well, one more thing. From Whittington's campaign page:
As a former felony prosecutor in the Galveston County District Attorney’s Office, I believe violent offenders should go to prison upon conviction, and not be probated back to our neighborhoods.
What would Candidate Whittington say about the sentence that Defense Attorney Whittington negotiated in his role of looking out for his client's best interests? In particular, what would he say if Judge Criss had accepted it? I point this out just as a reminder that the real world is often more complicated than a campaign slogan.
Click More to read Judge Criss' opinion on the subject.
I must respond to a recent editorial that stated that making a call on a plea bargain is not the job of the judge. My remarks are not about a particular case or a particular judge except myself.
I believe that if my signature is required then so is my thoughtful deliberation. I did not take this job to be a rubber stamp. I always remember that the plea bargain has consequences for the persons standing in front of me, for the victim, for other potential victims and the entire community.
It is not the job of a judge to broker a deal between the DA and the defense. But it is the judge's responsibility to decide if the deal is just and legal.
I have rejected many plea bargains. Some were not fair to the victim. Some were not fair to the community. And some were not fair to the accused.
The Daily News published an editorial stating I was right to reject plea bargains that were unfairly oppressive to women charged with prostitution. I can't just be right when you agree with the result.
I ask questions of the attorneys and the defendant before I accept plea bargains. Some attorneys have complained before about that.
It makes them uncomfortable. It makes me uncomfortable when attorneys aren’t familiar enough with the facts of their case to answer my questions yet they stand before me wanting me to accept the deal they brokered.
Most lawyers do their job and have no problem with the asking or the answering. I ask questions of the defendant to make sure they understand the legal consequences of the pleas and know and are voluntarily waiving their constitutional rights.
As a judge, I cannot go out and investigate a case. I have to rely on what the lawyers, the defendants and witnesses tell me in court.
I know that sometimes the DA must make deals he does not want to because of problems with evidence. Some young vulnerable victims cannot come into court and testify.
The DA is stuck between facing certain loss in court or getting a much lesser punishment than the case merits. I try to determine if such problems are the driving force of the plea bargain before deciding what I should do.
Judges are required by law to make several findings before being able to accept a deal. If the judge does not accept a plea bargain, the defendant is allowed to withdraw a plea of guilty and enter a plea of not guilty.
Judges must determine if a defendant is knowingly and voluntarily giving up certain constitutional rights and has the mental competence to do so.
I am prohibited by law from accepting a guilty plea if the person claims to be innocent. I have rejected many pleas where that occurred. In some instances the defendant later returned and admitted guilt. In other cases the persons turned out to be innocent.
There are times when a higher court after review has ordered me to sign a document I did not agree with. That is OK with me. I may not like doing that in a particular case, but I respect the process of review by a higher court.
It would be arrogant of me or any judge to assume that we are never wrong. The only one who was never wrong did not sit on a bench but stood before one before being crucified.
What I can guarantee is that I will always do what I believe to be the right thing. I do not substitute anyone else’s judgment for my own.
I haven't paid enough attention to the fierce debate over immigration that's currently brewing in the Senate, the streets, and even the schools. Since I don't think I have any original thoughts to add at this time, let me say that I endorse the ideas expressed by David Neiwert and Kevin Drum that the way to approach this problem is to aim for policy that makes citizenship the goal. We want, or at least we should want, immigrants who want to assimilate, who value the idea of becoming Americans, and who will take positive steps towards that ideal. Constructing a framework that helps immigrants achieve these goals is a necessary first step.
Some things to read as you ponder all this:
Stace reports from various marches, and gets feedback on the student walkout at Eisenhower High School.
Vince reflects on Cesar Chavez Day and HR4437.
Matt expands on HR4437 and explains that Rep. Lamar Smith is on the wrong side (no surprise to anyone who knows anything about Smith's record).
Rico Politico on A Day Without Mexicans.
South Texas Chisme writes about "business" interests in immigration.
Got a link I've missed? Leave a comment. Thanks!
I have no idea what this guy is talking about.
Donald Younger read last Monday's article about the challenges faced by MetroRail operators. "I would like to say a little about the passengers and pedestrians," he writes."First of all, you have to wait at the rail stops in a cloud of smoke most of the time. When the train arrives all the smokers flip their butts on the platform or the rail."
"Then there is a barrage of announcements from the P.A. system which is usually turned up to maximum volume. There is the 'suspicious package' announcement, then the 'be sure you have a fare item' announcement, which everyone ignores.
"Of course these are in both English and Spanish so they can be doubly annoying. Then there are four announcements to let you know about the arrival of the next train."
And the train doors screech when they close. You get the picture. Younger said he has gone back to riding the bus.
Frankly, anyone who rides a train every day and does not learn to tune this sort of thing out is beyond my help. That said, having ridden the light rail back to my office from a downtown meeting today, the only announcements I can recall are the ones about the train arriving (which I for one am always glad to hear, because it means I'll be boarding my train soon) and the ones about what the next station is. These are short messages, and neither of them qualify as a "barrage". We did get the "fare item" announcement - once, as we approached the TMC Transit Center stop. We also got the suspicious package announcement once, as we departed TMC Transit Center. Again, not my idea of a barrage.
If the doors screeched, I didn't notice. (Like I said - tune it out.) Maybe the poor guy just needs a change of scenery. Here's hoping he can find whatever it is he's looking for on the bus.
The Chronicle runs a story on Carol Alvarado today that's one part biography/career retrospective and one part political obituary. The big question: Will she ever be able to run for political office successfully again?
"Even taking the best case, that she's telling the truth and didn't know what was going on, it's still a huge political misstep and probably ends any possibility that she could be elected citywide to any seat like controller or mayor. That's probably unrealistic," says University of Houston political scientist Richard Murray, who taught Alvarado when she attended UH."Very likely she would have to go for a district seat, maybe congressional down the line, but more likely a state representative or Senate seat based substantially in the community that she grew up in, where voters would be more forgiving."
I figure Alvarado would have been a strong contender in a wide-open Mayoral race in 2009. She had a pretty nice resume prior to the recent unpleasantness, but it obviously doesn't look quite as good now. So, I think that ship has sailed.
As for the other possibilities, there's good news and bad news. The good news is that she's in a soldidly Democratic part of town, so assuming she can make it to the general election for whatever seat she wants, she'll win. The bad news is that she's in a solidly Democratic part of town, so she'll either need to knock off an incumbent in what would surely be a nasty and bloody primary fight, or wait till someone steps down and win a slightly less nasty and bloody primary fight for the open seat.
Looking at a map of District I and comparing it to the various maps on the redistricting resources page, Alvarado currently represents parts of State House Districts 142 (Harold Dutton), 143 (Ana Hernandez), 145 (Rick Noriega), and 147 (Garnet Coleman). Dutton and Coleman aren't going anywhere; Hernandez is in her freshman term, so even if she has her sights on higher office, she'll likely stay where she is for awhile first. I'd say her best bet here is to hope that Rick Noriega decides to make a statewide run in 2008.
Much of City Council District I is also within State Senate DIstrict 6. Mario Gallegos might be vulnerable to a primary challenge, and he might decide to hang up his hat when this term expires in 2008. This is also a possibility to watch for. As for Congress, I can't see her attempting to take out Gene Green in CD29, and I don't see any reason why Green might retire soon. Barring a surpise there, I'd say it's not on the table.
One last thing to keep in mind: Carol Alvarado is only 38 years old. She has plenty of time to go off and do something else for awhile to rebuild that resume of hers and let this scandal fade from the public memory. Who knows what the political landscape will be like in 2014 or 2016? What she's going through now is bad, but unless she actually gets convicted of something, or perhaps just arrested, it's way too early to say she's forevermore unelectable to anything outside her neighborhood.
UPDATE: Stace adds his thoughts.
This WaPo piece is a companion to the National Journal piece whose excerpts were in TPM Muckraker that I linked to over the weekend. It's about DeLay buddy and former Chief of Staff Ed Buckham and the money he made via a phony nonprofit that got much of its money from Russian oil interests that sought to influence how DeLay voted on key legislation. A few highlights for you:
A top adviser to former House Whip Tom DeLay received more than a third of all the money collected by the U.S. Family Network, a nonprofit organization the adviser created to promote a pro-family political agenda in Congress, according to the group's accounting records.DeLay's former chief of staff, Edwin A. Buckham, who helped create the group while still in DeLay's employ, and his wife, Wendy, were the principal beneficiaries of the group's $3.02 million in revenue, collecting payments totaling $1,022,729 during a five-year period ending in 2001, public and private records show.
The group's revenue was drawn mostly from clients of Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff, according to its records. From an FBI subpoena for the records, it can be inferred that the bureau is exploring whether there were links between the payments and favorable legislative treatment of Abramoff's clients by DeLay's office.
[...]
The group's payments to the Buckhams -- in the form of a monthly retainer as well as commissions on donations by Abramoff's clients -- overlapped briefly with Edwin Buckham's service as chief of staff to DeLay and continued during his subsequent role as DeLay's chief political adviser.
During this latter period, Buckham and his wife, Wendy, acting through their consulting firm, made monthly payments averaging $3,200-$3,400 apiece to DeLay's wife, Christine, for three of the years in which he collected money from the USFN and some other clients.
[...]
Wendy Buckham was not the only spouse of a DeLay staffer to benefit from the USFN revenue stream sustained by Abramoff's clients. A consulting firm owned by the wife of Tony C. Rudy, DeLay's deputy chief of staff, was paid $15,600 by the group in 1999 and another $10,400 in 2000. Rudy resigned to work with Abramoff in 2001. It could not be determined what the payments were for.
[...]
Records obtained by federal investigators after [a previous article in The Post] appeared and reviewed by The Post make clear just how unusual USFN's spending was. Its revenue was lavished not only on DeLay's advisers but on a variety of expenses that experts say are atypical for such a small nonprofit: $62,375 for wall art, a vase listed at $20,100, airfare and meals for Abramoff that cost $11,548, and $267,202 in travel and entertainment expenses that appear to have benefited mostly Buckham, the group's board members, and its tiny staff.
"They were using donor funds for interior decorating," said Chris Geeslin, a pastor in Frederick, Md., who between 1998 and 2001 served as one of the group's directors and then its president. He blamed what he described as the group's misspending on Buckham, who he said "would tell us where you should put things. He orchestrated all this. . . . He used us."
Emphasis mine. That's now a Chief of Staff and a Deputy Chief of Staff for DeLay who are under investigation for being seriously crooked. Quite the office you ran there, Tom.
Link via Josh Marshall, who includes this tidbit:
Like Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA) and Rep. John Sweeney (R-NY), Buckham siphoned off funds off of political contributions and converted them into personal income by having his wife take 'commissions' for a nominal role as fundraiser. Her cut was 10%.In 1997, for instance, on $524,975 contributed by a handful of Abramoff clients, Wendy Buckham pocketed $43,000 in 'commissions.'
The family that siphons together stays together, I suppose.
Barbara Radnofsky is guest-blogging again at Capitol Annex, while her campaign manager Seth puts in a few words on her behalf at Wampum. As unhappy as I was that she did not win the Senate nomination outright on Primary Day, I feel like she and her team have done a good job in turning the runoff into a positive. All of the endorsements she's gotten from various elected officials, SDEC members, and other members of the establishment (one name to add to this story about her campaign headquarters opening is HCDP Chair Gerry Birnberg) have helped put a little focus on this race. It would have been nice to have had some of this before March 7, but better late than never.
Also appearing on Wampum is David Harris, where he writes about environmental issues, where he obviously contrasts sharply with Smokey Joe Barton. Take a look at Breath of Life for a more ecumenical view of the environment while you're there. Dave is also writing about immigration issues at BOR. Check it out.
If the end of the line for Jeff Bagwell isn't here, it's getting really close.
Conceding that it might take "a miracle" for him to play again, Houston Astros slugger Jeff Bagwell went on the disabled list Saturday in a move that could signal the end of his major-league career.The franchise's all-time leader in home runs and RBIs is considering surgery to remove the bone spurs in his shoulder in a last-ditch effort to salvage his career, and the Astros will start a season without him on the roster for the first time in 16 years.
"I said I wasn't going to embarrass myself," said Bagwell, 37. "I felt like this was a joke. I couldn't throw it to the infield. I could not get the ball to the infielders, and they were on the grass. And God bless my teammates. I mean, even (when I had to throw the ball back to the pitcher), they come to get the ball from me. It's amazing how great they've been through this.
"I just could not get it to them. I said, 'This is not what I want. I'm not going to continue to do this.' We're defending our National League championship this year. ... And I'm not going to be this kind of distraction and this broken-down first baseman over here that can't throw it to the infielders. I said, 'That's enough, and I have to go in a different direction.' "
We all understand now why the Astros tried to collect on that insurance policy by claiming he was physically unable to play, right?
Bagwell was a great player and a class act. He'll be the first career Astro to enter the Hall of Fame, and he'll deserve all the plaudits he'll get for that. I'm sure this wasn't how he wanted to go, but sometimes there's no choice in the matter. Kudos to him for recognizing the inevitable.
Whatever happens from here, I say Thank You to Jeff Bagwell for everything. The team, this city, and fans everywhere will miss seeing you on the field. Good luck and godspeed to you.
Women struggling with cuts to clinics.
Through her divorce and the struggles of raising three girls on her salary at the Sonic Drive-In, there was one thing in Tanya Wilson's life that came easy.Every three months, Wilson drove to the Planned Parenthood in her Panhandle hometown to get a birth control shot for free, most times with little or no wait. It was a great relief for a 34-year-old woman who didn't want any more children but lacked money for a tubal ligation.
Suddenly in January, her relief turned to stress. Wilson was among hundreds of patients across 17 counties who learned that the clinic they relied on for birth control, annual exams, Pap tests, breast cancer screenings, sexually transmitted disease tests and other services was closing because of funding cuts triggered by two little-known provisions tucked into the state's budget last session.
She's been pleading with the town's only remaining family planning clinic, which has been picking up other patients, to see her. She's one of many who hasn't had a Pap test in the past year because it would require driving an hour to the Amarillo Planned Parenthood.
She doesn't know how she'd get there. Besides the job and the kids, her 1992 Honda Accord smokes, leaks oil and probably couldn't make the trip.
"I work, and I've got three girls already. I don't need no more kids," said Wilson, who is being abstinent with her live-in boyfriend because she's a month late on her shot. "I don't understand why they would close (the clinic). It's just caused a lot of grief for a lot of women."
Women are facing similar scenarios across Texas, as traditional family planning providers such as Planned Parenthood cut hours, staff and programs, even close doors, in response to new provisions that siphoned off tens of millions of family planning dollars for other programs and providers.
How bad is this situation? This bad:
One of the House's most conservative Republicans, veteran Panhandle Rep. Warren Chisum, who helped pass the state's ban on same-sex marriage and longs to outlaw abortion in Texas, joined efforts to thwart the provisions before they passed. He's still hoping Panhandle funding will be restored."I'm not for abortion. I'm pro-life. But I'm not anti-women's health," Chisum said. ''You have your mixed emotions about it, but actually, in the Texas Panhandle, they don't perform abortions, so it's unfortunate that they're one of the ones that got their funds cut."
When Warren freaking Chisum says you've gone too far, you've really really gone too far.
Yet Republican Senate Finance Chairman Bill Ogden is skeptical of the outcries, saying the complaints seem more about "turf protection and employee protection" than denying women services."There is not a single piece of evidence that anybody has offered to suggest that those changes have hurt an individual out there," said Ogden, of Bryan. "I would argue that it could have conceivably helped."
Here's Senator Ogden's official state webpage, which has a contact form on it, and here's his campaign webpage. I can't find an email address on either, but there's plenty of phone numbers to call if you want to ask him if he's read this article. (His name is Steve, by the way, not Bill.) Do feel free to enlighten him.
There's such a thing as liking a song a little too much.
VH1 Classic will present a full hour of the English and German music videos for the 1984 hit 99 Luftballons, aka 99 Red Balloons, by German rock group Nena.The music video presentation, to air Sunday (1 p.m. CST), caps off the cable channel's "Pay to Play for Hurricane Katrina Relief," which raised over $200,000 for Mercy Corps, a humanitarian relief organization.
Viewers could request one video to be played on VH1 Classic for every $25 donation. For a $35,000 donation, they could select an hour's worth of music videos from the 1960s through the early 1990s.
However, one viewer chose something different for his allotted hour, requesting continuous playing of 99 Luftballons, said VH1 spokeswoman Maura Wozniak.
Well, if you ever wanted to be able to sing along with the original German version when it comes on the radio, here's your chance to really practice and get those lyrics down pat. I think I'll be watching some basketball.
You may recall this story from late last year about a Russian oil company funnelling $1 million to a phony "grassroots" group with deep ties to Tom DeLay for the alleged purpose of influencing his vote on legislation the International Monetary Fund needed to finance a bailout of the collapsing Russian economy. That story was the basis for the notorious anti-DeLay ad that the cowardly local TV stations refused at first to run.
Anyway, there are new developments on the Russian money for DeLay front. Read about it all here, and remember again that DeLay has bigger problems looming than what's going on in Austin.
Via Greg in TX22 comes this Congressional Quarterly piece that explains wingnut Steve Stockman's intended entry into the CD22 race as an independent. Executive summary: He aims to win.
Though Stockman says he is running to win, most observers are watching him more for his potential as a “spoiler.” Most votes for Stockman presumably would come from DeLay’s traditional conservative base, eroding the incumbent’s structural advantage in a district that typically leans strongly Republican.[...]
Stockman said the reaction to his campaign is “mixed,” but that many voters appear receptive to having an alternative to turmoil-plagued DeLay and Democrat Lampson. “While some Republicans are upset, some Democrats are upset, there are some people who are happy they have an option,” Stockman said.
[...]
Said Robert Stein, a political scientist at Rice University in Houston: “I think Steve Stockman, if he’s collecting signatures, believes that either one, the congressman is going to be convicted and therefore unable to hold office, or two, that [DeLay] is weak enough in the electorate that [Stockman] might actually sneak in there in a three-way race.”
Stockman said it was “whistling past the grave a little bit” and “not prudent” for Republicans to rally behind DeLay as their standard-bearer when the congressman has yet to go on trial on the state campaign finance charges.
Well, this makes more sense than the idea that he was running to help DeLay by acting as an anti-Lampson pit bull. Not that that was hard to do, because the running-to-help-DeLay made no sense at all. At least the concept of this idea makes sense, but only the concept. Stockman doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell if DeLay is on the ballot, and his odds are only slightly better in a two-way matchup. I say this because unlike Carole Strayhorn or Kinky Friedman, Stockman has no chance of peeling away any Democratic support, which means he'd have to take enough votes from DeLay to top the baseline Dem vote, which is about 37% going by 2004 results. Given that I fully expect Lampson to do better than Richard Morrison's 41%, and that this would mean Stockman would require at least two thirds of the rest of the vote, you can see why I'm skeptical.
There's also still the question of where Stockman is going to get the money to get his message out. Both Lampson and DeLay will have a barrage of ads on TV and radio, including ads run on their behalf by third parties, so unless Stockman can raise over a million dollars, I can't see how he competes with that. Mailers ain't gonna cut it.
Even if DeLay drops out, Stockman will need to work at getting the votes that the Hammer would have had, because he won't get any straight-ticket GOP votes. With Strayhorn and Friedman likely to be on the ballot, this is as good a year as any for candidates to benefit from non-straight party voting, but it strikes me as a risk to depend on people doing things that they don't normally do.
Finally, Stockman isn't all that popular with the GOP establishment these days. Yes, as Greg notes, he did well in Fort Bend in the 1998 GOP primary for Railroad Commissioner, but since then he was involved in a nasty primary fight against Rep. John Culberson. I'm willing to bet there's a lot of Republicans with long memories about that, especially in Harris County.
My assessment of Stockman hasn't changed. I think he pulls about five percent, maybe a bit more if he can raise a few funds. Every vote he does get comes straight from Tom DeLay's hide, so I certainly don't mind if he does better than that. Under no circumstances do I see him as having a realistic chance to win this race.
There was a candidates' forum to discuss the Trans Texas Corridor yesterday in Central Texas. Three gubernatorial wannabees were there. You'll never guess which one wasn't.
At 6:05 p.m. Friday, almost an hour before the start of the Blackland Coalition's gubernatorial candidate forum on the Trans-Texas Corridor, the asphalt outside of the Seaton Star Hall east of Temple was already half full of pickups and cars. Outside, representatives of writer and musician Kinky Friedman and Texas Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn were gathering petition signatures in their efforts to make the November ballot as independents and unseat Republican Gov. Rick Perry.Inside, many of the 750 chairs were filled already. Folks in gimme caps, black Stetson hats and jeans were munching on sausage wraps and, when she happened by, listening to Strayhorn make her pitch one-on-one. Friedman and Democratic candidate Chris Bell showed up later in time to speak to the crowd, making it the three challengers' first joint appearance of the campaign.
By 7 p.m., the room was full, and the response to the challengers during the next two hours was full-throated, giving at least some indications that Perry has genuine political work ahead.
His plan for a network of cross-state toll roads and rail lines has many rural Texans in an independent frame of mind.
"This area went Republican" in the mid-1990s, said Inez Cobb, a board member of the year-old coalition formed in opposition to the corridor plan. "But they better watch their step or it might not be for long."
[...]
[Perry spokesman Robert] Black said the corridor plan, despite demonstrations of widespread rural discontent such as Friday night's, won't hurt Perry in November.
"The governor believes that the vast majority of Texans, including rural Texans, understand that with a population expected to double in the next 40 years, the current Texas infrastructure can't handle that increase," Black said. "Something has to happen."
We'll see about that. As I noted before, I think that Strayhorn's anti-toll road supporters are more Republican than not - for sure, I got a ton of email from this crowd before the primaries exhorting votes for a number of candidates in various GOP primaries. I think this is a sizable chunk of her base.
But maybe Rick Perry isn't worried about that. He'll still be happy to point out that as with many other issues, Strayhorn used to be on the same team as he on the subject of toll roads.
Strayhorn, whose intention to supplant Perry in the Governor's Mansion has been well known for a couple of years, has periodically hammered Perry over his preference for toll roads as a solution to the Texas highway crunch.She was quoted in January saying, "This voice is dead set against toll roads."
But the Perry campaign says that wasn't always the case, noting news releases and reports out of her office in 2000 and 2001 touting toll roads as the way to get roads built quickly and boost the state's economy.
That was, of course, before the Legislature overhauled transportation law and transformed toll roads from a concept into a reality.
Chris Bell is also hitting her on this; he has excerpts from some of the aforementioned press releases. I've checked around some of the anti-toll road blogs but haven't seen any response to this yet. Sal? Any comment?
Thanks to South Texas Chisme for the link.
Carole Keeton Strayhorn has filed suit over how Texas Secretary of State Roger Williams (a Perry appointee) plans to verify signatures on her petition for ballot access.
Texas Comptroller Strayhorn and satirist Kinky Friedman each need to gather 45,540 valid Texas voter signatures by May 11 to get on the ballot in November as independent candidates for governor.Williams has said he will not begin verifying the petitions until after the May 11 deadline passes.
Williams also has said he will have his staff manually verify each signature instead of using a statistical analysis as has been done in the past. That verification process could take two months and might not be done until just before he must certify the November ballot on Sept. 13.
McClellan invited Friedman's campaign to join the lawsuit.
Friedman spokeswoman Laura Stromberg said the campaign is reviewing the Strayhorn lawsuit and will decide whether to join it next week. She said Friedman is mostly concerned that state law discriminates against independents to favor major party candidates.
"Williams isn't being unfair. State law is unfair," Stromberg said.
Third party and independent petition drive lawsuits in the past have been unsuccessful in Texas. Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader lost a lawsuit challenging the Texas system in 2004.
Once again, I will point out that if Friedman thought the Texas law was wrong, he had an opportunity to formally express that view when Nader sued to overturn it in 2004. He failed to do so. You know the rest.
But independent campaign consultant Linda Curtis of Austin said a Texas Supreme Court ruling in January favoring two Republican Texas Court of Criminal Appeals candidates "could open the door" for a successful lawsuit by Strayhorn.The court ruled the candidates should have an opportunity to "cure" problems in their ballot petitions even though the deadline for submitting them had passed.
Strayhorn's lawsuit seeks a federal injunction against Williams ordering him to use statistical analysis as a method of petition verification. It also wants him to begin verifying signatures as Strayhorn turns petitions in so she has an opportunity to "cure" any defects before the May 11 deadline.
[...]
To be valid, signatures on the petitions must be from registered voters who did not cast ballots in Democratic or Republican primaries or runoffs this year. Also, if someone signs both petitions, only the signature that is dated first counts toward ballot access.
[SOS spokesman Scott] Haywood said that is why a manual count is required.
"Given the fact there are multiple individuals vying for a spot on the ballot as an independent, verifying every signature is the surest way to protect the integrity of our elections and confirm the validity of a candidate's name on the ballot," Haywood said.
I think the SOS argument that the presence of multiple candidates and the need to ensure all the signatures they collected are unique is a reasonable one. As such, I agree with their plan to do a full accounting of each petition.
On the other hand, I presume that the method for doing this will involve entering each name, address, and so on from each petition into a computer so they can be checked against various databases for validity and against the voter rolls from March to ensure they handn't participated in a primary. I further expect that's how they plan to determine if a signer is a repeat customer.
Assuming that I'm not being naive here, and that the SOS plan is not to have some poor sap start at the top of one petition and then scan the entirity of the other to look for a match, then I see no reason why this needs to take so long. Even if I'm wrong about that - indeed, especially if I'm wrong about that - I see no reason why the SOS should feel compelled to wait until May 11 to get cracking. You don't need to know if a signature is unique to check to see if its address is valid or if its owner had already voted. If it were up to me, I'd order him to start processing each petition page as soon as he gets it. I really can't think of a reason why you wouldn't do that.
The headline pretty much says it all: Lobbyists organize Patrick fundraiser.
State Senate nominee Dan Patrick, who blasted an opponent in the recent Republican primary for taking contributions from lobbyists, is having a fundraising reception in Austin next week, hosted by lobbyists for a range of special interests, including casinos.Lobbyist Steve Bresnen, whose clients include the Texas Trial Lawyers Association, the Texas State Association of Fire Fighters and the Bingo Interest Group, said he organized the Thursday event at the private Austin Club.
[...]
It is not unusual for newly elected legislators or legislative candidates to have Austin fundraisers, but Patrick, campaigning before the primary as a political outsider, all but condemned the lobby.
In a campaign television spot, he urged voters to help him "take our state back from the special interests and the lobbyists."
"It's time for change," he said.
In an interview Thursday, Patrick said his principles haven't changed. He said he still isn't soliciting special interest money but would take some donations if they were offered with the understanding that no strings were attached.
"I have a lot of debt (more than $300,000) to retire," he said.
If a donor later suggests that he has bought his influence, Patrick added, "I will escort him to the door."
The nominee said he will refuse money from abortion rights groups, trial lawyers and people trying to expand gambling. He said that ban didn't apply to lobbyists, such as Bresnen, who represents trial lawyers and bingo interests but has other clients as well.
"You know how the system works. One person (lobbyist) represents a lot of interests," he said. "They (lobbyists) want to meet me. People in Austin don't know me."
What can one possibly say? Congratulations, Dan Patrick, you are now officially a cog in the machine. Be sure you rotate your lobbyists every 5000 miles to avoid premature wear.
Normally, this is the part of the post where I'd tell you about the Democratic alternative. Unfortunately, based on things I've heard from more than one person lately, I can't recommend Michael Kubosh. From what I've been told, Kubosh has said he's really a Republican but filed as a Democrat so he could be in the general election. He's also apparently got views on immigration that are at least as out there as Patrick. No wonder he didn't mind letting ol' Danno back on the air. Far as I'm concerned, feel free to vote for the Libertarian or sit this race out.
Well, the Texas Ethics Commission met to discuss the case of Bill Ceverha, as expected. What was not expected was for them to give one of the stupidest rulings I've ever heard of.
The Texas Ethics Commission decided Friday that public officials who receive cash or other gifts don't have to disclose the value, stunning open-government advocates."This is absurd, dangerous and completely undermines the reform legislation," said Rep. Lon Burnam, D-Fort Worth.
The seven commission members, appointed by the governor, lieutenant governor and House speaker, wrestled with disclosure laws that compel public officials to report gifts over $250. The law calls for a description of the gift, and some commissioners said indicating simply "cash" – without an amount – satisfies the statute.
But government watchdogs told the commissioners that they are failing to enforce the clear meaning of the law, rendering it useless.
"This ruling leaves a big enough loophole to drive an armored truck full of money through," said Craig McDonald, director of Texans for Public Justice, which advocates for public disclosure. "All you would have to say is 'a truck.' "
Or maybe "bag", if you're more old school.
The case stems from a June 2005 disclosure filed by Dallas businessman Bill Ceverha, a close friend of House Speaker Tom Craddick, who appointed him to the State Employees Retirement System board. The system oversees a nearly $20 billion fund that provides benefits for 250,000 retired state workers.Mr. Ceverha disclosed that he received a gift, described only as a "check," from Houston homebuilder Bob Perry, the largest Republican donor in the state. Mr. Ceverha has declined to say how much the check was for. Mr. Perry's spokesman has described it as charitable – not political – giving.
A commission staff ruling held that Mr. Ceverha's description of the gift as a "check" was sufficient. And in its decision Friday, the Ethics Commission refused to revisit the rule or its interpretation.
All the commissioners who spoke agreed this constitutes an egregious loophole. But three commissioners blocked the possibility of a different interpretation, saying it is up to the Legislature to clarify the law. Six of seven commissioners must agree before a rule can be reconsidered.
The problem here is not unclear Legislative intent. It's utter wussiness on the part of the TEC. I'm just flabbergasted. The comment Benton left in my previous post on this topic is apt - Ceverha may as well have said he received a piece of paper with Bob Perry's autograph on it. That would not have told us any less.
Here's the statement by Rep. Lon Bunham, who testified before the TEC on this matter:
Today, the Texas Ethics Commission did a disservice to the people of Texas. Their misinterpretation of current disclosure law, followed by their inaction today, will continue to allow any public official to accept a cash gift without disclosing the amount.Under this misguided opinion, any appointee, commission or board member could literally accept a $1,000,000 check and simply write 'check' on their disclosure form.
The Ethics Commission is charged with ensuring disclosure laws are upheld. Today, they failed.
I do, however, want to thank Chairman Looney and Commissioners Taylor, Harrison, and Montagne for their votes in favor of transparent and open government. Had the other commissioners voted with these four members, the public interest would have been better served.
I am very pleased that some of the Commissioners insisted that this item be on the agenda again next month.
So it's up to the Lege to fix this mess, which almost certainly means this "egregious loophole" will remain on the books for at least another year. Thanks for nothing, fellas. Even Governor Perry supported the disclosure of the amount of a gift, and he's nobody's idea of an open government advocate.
Vince quotes Harvey Kronberg calling this "straight out of Kafka". Burnham has an op-ed in the Star Telegram that gives fuller voice to his outrage on this. I just don't know what else to say.
This is too funny.
It seems the Republican controlled Texas Legislature passed a law that if you’re indicted for a felony, you can’t be carrying a concealed handgun, even if you have a license.Oops.
At the request of the Texas Department of Public Safety, Republican Justice of the Peace Jim Richards signed an order suspending Thomas Dale DeLay’s license to carry a handgun in the State of Texas.
Sure does suck when tuff-on-crime measures come back to bite you, doesn't it? Juanita has all the official documents, including DeLay's notice of appeal on the ruling, so go check it out.
I have to say, this does not sound like the Tom Craddick I'm used to hearing.
Speaking to an audience of business and school leaders, Craddick said he thinks the state will end up paying for 60 percent to 65 percent of the $33 billion public school system, compared with the 35 percent that the state now picks up."There is a mode to shift back from the local property taxes, back to the state paying the larger share," he said.
"I think you'll see that done."
Craddick, who has been meeting with House members in small groups this week, said he is waiting to see the final details of a business tax plan being devised by a commission appointed by Gov. Rick Perry.
"The proof's in the pudding, at least it generally is in the Legislature," said Craddick, adding that the state comptroller must sign off that the tax plan will raise sufficient revenue to pay for a cut in property taxes.
[...]
On the subject of teacher pay, Craddick said he would like to see money targeted at teachers who work in at-risk schools or take hard-to-fill jobs. But he said an across-the-board raise might be considered.
I don't have the time right now to do the research, but this talk about the state picking up 60% of school funding sounds like a shift in rhetoric to me. Maybe I'm wrong, I don't know. I'll have to look at it more closely. Just color me surprised for now.
As for the subject of teacher pay, all I'll say for now is that as long as Kent Grusendorf continues to be Craddick's point man on school finance, I'll have my doubts about the Speaker's willingness to consider an across-the-board pay raise.
Rep. Kent Grusendorf, R-Arlington, chairman of the House Public Education Committee, sniffed politics in the pay proposals.Grusendorf, who lost his re-election bid last month to Diane Patrick, a GOP challenger backed by teacher groups, said of the proposers: "They're in a bidding war for the teacher vote." He said: "Aw, let's give them $10,000. It's not my money anyway, what do I care?"
'Nuff said.
Meanwhile, Rick Casey talks to Glen Rosenbaum, the point man for law firms' opposition to the new business tax proposal by the Texas Tax Reform Commission (TTRC), and distills the reasons for their resistance.
Here are the main points he made.
- The big firms are not against paying business taxes. They have been on record in committee testimony since 1997 as supporting some forms of taxation that would include them.
"We are not trying to kill or scuttle the Sharp Commission proposal," he said. "We are simply trying to get a compromise when the bill is filed in the Legislature."
- Rosenbaum's coalition has offered three compromises. The simplest one is to apply the tax to compensation over $500,000 or $550,000 rather than $300,000.
That would amount to an annual savings of $2,000 or $2,500 per partner.
- The primary objection is that the plan amounts to an income tax on partners in law firms, accounting firms, architectural firms and other professional partnerships. The partners are the ones who have to pay, unlike corporations, where the CEO may make well over $300,000 but the tax is levied on stockholders.
The difference is that the partners are not only workers, but owners as well.
Others argue that it is not an income tax. I would not bet a paycheck on how the courts would decide that question.
- Rosenbaum argues that the way the plan is structured, it would tax lawyers and other professional partnership at a higher rate than the current franchise tax. I don't know if that's true. He admits lawyers have escaped the franchise tax, but says it is not good policy to try to overcharge a group because it has been undercharged in the past.
- While 1 percent seems like a pittance, the firms are concerned that the Legislature would soon be under pressure to raise the rate.
"With the business tax, a 1 percent raise would bring in $6 billion," he said. "A 1 percent raise in the sales tax is $2.5 or $2.6 billion. So if you need to raise a billion dollars, you raise the business tax 0.2 percent."
This, I suspect, is the real issue.
I would not want to bet on the outcome of the lawsuit that alleges the new business tax is in part at least inherently a personal income tax, either. Steph brought that up in the comments to that earlier post, too. I hope they at least run this past AG Greg Abbott to make sure they've dotted their I's and crossed their T's.
Of course, I could point out that if Rosenbaum et al drop their opposition if the tax threshhold is raised to $550K as they suggest, then the issue of this being an income tax isn't really a matter of principle for them but of leverage. But that would be cynical of me.
In the comments to this post about the status of the charges against Tom DeLay, Right of Texas asks:
Don't you agree that all of this is semi-politically motivated?
My honest answer, at least right now, is no, I don't. Travis County DA Ronnie Earle has said that this case is about "cops and robbers". I do believe that's how he sees it, and I believe that's what's driving him.
That doesn't mean that he hasn't overstepped his bounds. One of the points raised by Earle's critics in the movie The Big Buy is that Earle is prosecuting based on what he believes the law should be, not on what it actually is. While I think that if that were truly the case, all of the indictments would have been flushed by now, I do think there's some merit to that assessment. I believe Earle is an idealist, and I think he sees himself as a protector of democracy and the integrity of elections. That doesn't alter the facts of the case, but it does suggest that perhaps he's a bit more motivated than another DA might have been.
I think Earle is taking a big risk by indicting Tom DeLay. From all that I've seen so far, I think he has a pretty solid case against the TRMPAC Three of Ellis, Colyandro, and RoBold. I think the reason why they're pursuing this to my mind bizarre theory that checks are not the same as cash is because they know they're in trouble on the facts, so their best bet is to get the law invalidated before a jury can be empaneled. It would have been much safer for Earle to simply go after these three guys. Convicting them would have been damaging to DeLay, enough so to have an effect on the 2006 election. Admittedly, DeLay would still be Majority Leader if he were not under indictment, and having a criminal trial hanging over his head is more damaging to him than just having three more felonious friends. But still, convicting the TRMPAC Three would be a blow to him and to his work.
Convicting DeLay is a taller order. I don't doubt that everything these guys did was completely in accord with DeLay's philosophy. I believe that to whatever extent he was involved in the daily business of TRMPAC, he authorized whatever was presented to him. I'm just not so sure he was all that hands-on, and unless someone (like RoBold, who's been mysteriously quiet and apparently uninvolved in all the appeal activity) testifies that he did give the go-ahead on a specific item or two, I think it could be very hard to prove that he had a direct hand in the actual criminal acts. That's why the conspiracy charge, whose dismissal Earle is appealing, matters - it's the easiest of the three to prove.
I believe the risk for Earle is that in the end he's going to be judged solely on whether or not he convicts DeLay. If he does, then that speaks for itself. If not, even if the TRMPAC Three go down on all the charges against them, I think the story line will be that Earle failed to get DeLay. He's putting a reasonably achievable result on the line for one that's more of a reach. I'm not sure I'd do the same if I were in his shoes.
So why bother? I don't believe he's doing it because indicting Tom DeLay benefitted (at least temporarily) the Democratic Party, nationally or in Texas. I just don't see that as part of the equation for him. As such, if that's your definition of "political motivation", I disagree. I think Earle saw what happened in the 2002 elections - by that I mean the influx of corporate money and the way it was used - as a grave wrong, and I think he saw Tom DeLay as being ultimately responsible for it. I think it's the fact that it happened, not who it happened to, that motivates him, and I think he believes the way to prevent it from happening again to anyone is to make an example of the person who made it happen this time.
That's my opinion. There's a lot of dime-store psychologizing in there, much or all of which could be utter BS, but after following this case for a long time, that's how I see it.
One last thing: If the trial timeline does drag out past November 7, and if as DeLay believes Earle does drop the charges against him once Election Day is over, then (assuming there have been no adverse court rulings against him that would change his prospects) I will be forced to conclude that everything I'm saying here is wrong, and that Earle really did only care about submarining DeLay's re-election chances. Obviously, I don't believe that will happen. But if it does, I'll take all of this back and admit that I was wrong.
Via Greg, I see that State Rep. Al Edwards is claiming to have the endorsement of Texas Democratic Party Chair Charles Soechting for the April 11 runoff. While it's not unheard of for a state party chair to get involved in a primary - for excellent reasons, Soechting has endorsed Barbara Radnofsky, while on the other side of the aisle, RPT Chair Tina Benkiser endorsed Kent Grusendorf in his losing primary battle - I at least would be a little surprised to see Soechting put down a marker here, given Edwards' fealty to House Speaker Tom Craddick. I understand that inquiries have been made about this and a response is supposed to be forthcoming; when it is, I'll pass it along. Stay tuned.
(Just so we're all clear, Greg is doing work for Borris Miles. Don't think that makes any difference here, but just so you know.)
UPDATE: Turns out the endorsement is legit. I stand corrected, and as noted, a little surprised.
You may recall State Rep. Lon Burnham's pursuit of bankrupt TRMPAC treasurer Bill Ceverha and his conflicts of interest as a member of the board of the Employees Retirement System of Texas - see here for the previous entry in the story. Today, the Texas Ethics Commission has a board meeting, at which Burnham will address them regarding his concerns. Here's the press release:
State Rep. Lon Burnam will address the Texas Ethics Commission at their board meeting scheduled for [today], March 24, 2006, at 9:00.One of the agenda items that the Ethics Commission is set to discuss tomorrow involves the check Bob Perry gave to Employees Retirement System board member Bill Ceverha after he was appointed by Speaker Craddick. Ceverha disclosed the gift from Perry only as a "check." Ceverha never disclosed the amount of the check, basically making a mockery of the intent of disclosure laws.
Last week was Sunshine Week, but one week is not enough to shine a light on those who attempt to degrade disclosure laws in Texas. Exempting Bill Ceverha from disclosing the amount of a check given to him by the largest Republican donor in the state sets a very dangerous precedent. Any public official would be able to receive a cash "gift" and the public would never know if it was for $1,000 or $1,000,000. Democracy relies on disclosure and open government, not secret gifts to public servants.
According to the Texas Ethics Commission web site, the Perry-Ceverha check controversy will be addressed tomorrow during "Agenda item 16; Public discussion and possible action regarding a petition for rulemaking regarding the description of a gift that is reportable under section 572.023(b)(7) of the Government Code."
WHO: Rep. Burnam/Ethics CommissionWHAT: Ethics Commission to address Perry check to Ceverha
WHEN: Friday, March 24, 2006 -- 9:00 A.M. (Rep. Burnam will likely appear before the Board between 9:30 and 10:00.)
WHERE: Room E1.010, Capitol Extension
I'll be looking for any media coverage after his testimony.
Spring is here, and that means is home tour time.
The Woodland Heights Civic Association is first out of the box with this weekend's tour, the group's major fundraiser. The event also will mark the neighborhood's 99th birthday."We live in a wonderful, historic area that pre-dates most of the defining moments in Houston's history," said Brigette Larson, who is co-chairing this weekend's event with Emily Guyre and Felicia Zbranek. "People were living in the Woodland Heights before there was a Ship Channel, before there was a Rice University, before many parts of Houston were even envisioned."
[...]
The homes will be open for viewing from 1-6 p.m. Saturday and Sunday.
Tickets are $15 (children 12 and under will be admitted free) and are being sold throughout the neighborhood at 14 sites.
Tickets will also be sold the days of the event at the homes and at the esplanade in the 3000 block of Norhill.
Tiffany and I are signed up to sell tickets from 1 to 3:30 on Saturday, so come by and see us. The article doesn't say, but in years past there have been Metro trolleys to take you from house to house. If it's a nice day and you want to get a little exercise, though, I'd suggest walking. Four of the six houses are within six blocks of the Esplanade, so most of the tour is easy enough to do on foot.
You can get a preview of the houses here. If that's not enough to satisfy your hunger for historic homes, come back next weekend for the Houston Heights home tour. Have fun!
From Glen Maxey, via Patrick Franklin:
Exciting New Tool: Requests for Mail Ballots Made SimpleHelp Barbara Radnofsky or your favorite local run-off candidate in the Democratic Primary Run-Off !
Here's a great tool that has been developed to assist in getting vote by mail applications created for seniors, the disabled or people out of their county on election day and during early voting.
If you need an application, click on this link:
http://www.goodmail.org/Ballot/(if the link doesn't work, cut and paste the address in your browser)
When you finish, and print out the application, it'll have the address and/or fax number of the correct Mail Ballot Clerk for your county. SIGN THE APPLICATION and mail or fax it.
Deadline for the application to reach the clerk is April 4th. Don't delay!
Know someone off at college? In the hospital? Out of town this month? Have a friend living in a senior care facility? Have neighbors who need an application?
Send them this link so they can get an application. http://www.goodmail.org/Ballot/
Or do them a service by printing it out for them. They just need to sign it and mail it.
If this sounds like it could be useful to you, check it out.
In my earlier post on the big Metro meeting to discuss the location of the Universities rail line, I noted that there would be a number of smaller meetings held by district City Council members Ann Clutterbuck, Ada Edwards, and Pam Holm, all of whom represent areas that the line will pass through. This Chron article lists the time and place for most of these meetings:
In Clutterbuck's District C:
- April 6: West University Church of Christ, 3407 Bissonnet
- April 10: Girl Scout headquarters, 3110 Southwest Freeway
- April 12: Location to be announced
- April 18: Central Presbyterian Church, 3788 Richmond
In Edward's District D:
- April 11: Location to be announced
- April 23: South Main Baptist Church, 4100 Main St
In Holm's District G:
- April 17: Location to be announced
All meetings are set to start at 6:30 PM. For more information about the ones whose location have not been set, I'd advise contacting the respective Council member's office.
Colorado Luis, one of my favorite state-focused blogs, is calling it a career.
This blog has been around since August 2003 and now it is time to close. Back when I started, there were few state level blogs and people were more willing to put up with sporadic posting and just plain missing big events. People's expectations are justifiably a lot higher now with the rise of group blogs like Soapblox Colorado and professional sites like ProgressNow Action and PLAN Blog, which I didn't get to plug enough since it launched. I don't have enough time to maintain a worthy Colorado political blog, and actually I am undertaking some off-line projects that (hopefully) will leave me with even less time.
We state-focused bloggers have come a long way since 2003 - I've lost count of how many such Texas-based blogs there are now. The amount of coverage of the 2005 Legislative sessions alone was mind-boggling and very, very useful. Obviously, that's all a good thing, at least as far as I'm concerned. Heck, there's been enough growth in this industry to warrant its own Koufax Award. (No, I didn't make it to the finals. But there's no shame in losing to this fine bunch of competitors.)
Be that as it may, I'm sad to see Luis go. I was a fan of his site from its debut, and I'll miss his writing. Guess I'll have to give Soapblox Colorado a look. Thanks for all the good blogging, Luis, and best of luck in the future.
So the hearing by the 3rd Court of Appeals on whether or not to reinstate one of the indictments against Tom DeLay was yesterday. The ruling will take some time, and the trial is still too far off on the horizon to make it out.
The court heard an appeal that Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle brought contesting Priest's December decision to throw out two criminal charges against DeLay. Priest let stand money laundering charges against DeLay.Earle's appeal of Priest's ruling brought DeLay's trial to a halt, and before Wednesday's hearing, 107 days had passed without action.
The appeals court typically rules six to eight weeks after holding a hearing. If DeLay wins this decision, Earle is expected to appeal the case to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
[...]
DeGuerin said he was not asking the court for preferential treatment. He said DeLay, who was not at Wednesday's hearing, just needs to get the case resolved before the general election in November.
"It's a plea for prompt disposition, which has been our cry all along," DeGuerin said. "We want to get this case tried, and when we get it tried, we're going to win."
One might point out that some portion of the delay is Team DeLay's responsibility. They didn't have to move to recuse Judge Perkins, for example. We'd at least be a few weeks further down the road by now if that hadn't happened, possibly quite a bit more if the indictment that Priest ultimately tossed was not up for review under Perkins. DeLay was within his rights to do what he did, and Ronnie Earle is within his rights to pursue these appeals. Like it or not, that's the way it goes.
Be that as it may, if we split the difference and assume seven weeks for the 3rd Court's ruling, that puts us in mid-May. Assuming they uphold Judge Priest and the timeline is the same for the next round, it's another three months for the CCA to hear that appeal and another seven weeks for that ruling, which puts us in mid-October. That would pretty much guarantee that the trial wouldn't happen until after Election Day.
DeLay has said that if the matter is still unresolved by then, he expects Earle will drop the charges. Since the only defense Earle will ultimately have against the argument that this pursuit was politically motivated from the start is to secure convictions, I seriously doubt that will happen. Unless Ellis and Colyandro get a favorable ruling on their appeal that they didn't actually break the law, which would torpedo the basis of the charges against DeLay as well, I expect this to go to trial some day. I don't know when that day may be, but I believe it will happen.
Not everyone thinks that the hurricane task force plan that Governor Perry recently mandated is a good idea; in particular, the recommendation to make the governor the sole decision-maker on when evacuations should occur was criticized.
Giving the governor the authority to order evacuations would require a change in state law.That is a change that Galveston Mayor Lyda Ann Thomas does not want to see.
Thomas said that as mayor of Galveston, she and the county judge would have firsthand knowledge of the happenings on the island and in Galveston County.
"The authority given to mayors and county judges should not be diminished and turned over to the governor," she said. "As a Category 4 storm approaches the city of Galveston, a governor sitting in Austin and a president sitting in Washington will not know what is actually going on in that particular community."
Just remember those three little words: "Heckuva job, Brownie".
Brazoria County Judge John Willy concurs with Thomas, saying local officials are better qualified to determine the needs of residents."Brazoria County has been having storms for as long as people have been here. We know how to handle ourselves during the storm. We know when to get the people out of the area that is going to be affected by floods. If they know better than us in Austin, and he (Perry) puts it into law then, of course, we'll abide by it."
He added: "Bottom line is, we want to work with the governor and our neighboring counties. We want to have a traffic management in place so when it crosses the jurisdictional lines that the people north or west of us understand what the needs are and how we can help people move."
I can understand the reason for this recommendation, but I'm not sold on it, either. If a bill to make it happen gets filed this year or next, I expect it will come under vigorous debate, which is how it should be. Stay tuned.
You may recall that Comptroller Strayhorn had announced an audit of payments to the lobbying firm Cassidy & Associates by the state's Office of Federal and State Relations (OFSR) after the Chron broke a story about C&A's funneling money back to the Republican Party via campaign contributions. Yesterday, Strayhorn took the next step and suspended the state's payments to C&A.
"During the early stages of my expenditure audit of the contract with Cassidy & Associates, enough questions have been raised and I have found sufficient reason to indefinitely stop all payments to the firm," Strayhorn said.She said Texas law prohibits the use of taxpayer money to lobby the Legislature, influence elections or support candidates at the state or federal level.
Strayhorn said Texas should not be paying outside contract lobbyists to promote state issues with Congress.
"By any measure, using tax dollars to pay a private firm to lobby the federal government or members of Congress is a wholly inappropriate and unwise use of public money," Strayhorn said.
Cassidy, based in Washington, D.C., is not the state's only contract lobbyist. The state-federal relations office also pays $15,000 a month to the Federalist Group, also Washington-based. That firm's lead lobbyist is Drew Maloney, a former top aide to [Rep. Tom] DeLay, R-Sugar Land.
Philip wonders why Strayhorn, whom he criticizes for being silent on this issue until it was politically expedient for her to speak out, didn't also suspend payments to Maloney. I'd say it's probably because there isn't any evidence at this time that Maloney kicked back to his benefactors like C&A did, even though Maloney was allegedly hired at DeLay's insistence.
The rest of the article is much huffing and puffing about the politics of the situation. Of course this is a political move on Strayhorn's part. She knows the value of a headline like this. I think if she really wanted to maximize the effect, she might've timed the release to be either closer to the announcement of the April 17 special session, or closer to the actual start of the session. Be that as it may, and keeping Philip's comments in mind, I think she was right to take this action. I just wish more attention had been paid to this cozy little arrangement from the beginning.
UPDATE: I'd say this helps explain why Strayhorn picked on one state-funded lobbyist group and not the other:
At least one of Maloney’s Federalist Group partners, Wayne Berman, contributed $5,000 to the Strayhorn campaign on October 19, 2002. (Source: Texas Ethics Commission)
Well, there you go. Thanks to Philip for the catch.
This is not encouraging.
Tom Green County Republican Party Chairman Dennis McKerley suspended the recount of the County Court-at-Law No. 2 race about 1:30 p.m. after seeking advice from the Texas Secretary of State’s Office, which suggested shutting down the recount until what appear to be problems with electronic voting machines could be fixed.“When a couple numbers didn’t come out right, we tried the double-checks and kept checking,” said McKerley, who as GOP chairman is running the recount. ‘’We’re having trouble with the electronic equipment.'’
About 3,000 early votes and 9,500 total votes were cast in the Republican primary race, which featured incumbent Judge Penny Roberts and two challengers - Assistant County Attorney Julie Hughes and former prosecutor Dan Edwards.
Initial election results, certified by the county Saturday, showed Edwards finishing 12 votes behind Roberts for second place and the right to face Hughes in the April 11 runoff election.
The problem in the recount appears to be with new, federally mandated electronic voting machines, provided by vendor Hart InterCivic. During a hand recount, the machines are designed to print out paper ballots for each voter’s choices, but Mc-Kerley said the machines that were used to register early votes printed out only 75 percent to 80 percent of the votes believed to have been cast.
A Hart InterCivic representative is expected to arrive this morning, McKerley said, to determine whether or how to retrieve the remaining printouts.
Well, at least it's nice to know that the danged things have the capability of printing a ballot. I still say the right answer is to print one out immediately after the voter has hit the "cast ballot" button. If nothing else, at least you'll know right away when you've got a problem.
If the Hart InterCivic representative cannot print out the ballots elections workers believe should be there - or if they simply aren't there at all - the Republican Party will have no choice but to certify the ballots in hand, McKerley said.That likely would give any of the three candidates cause to contest the result in state district court, where he or she can ask a judge to throw out the results and call for a new election.
''If all we can count are 8,100 ballots, that becomes the official count for the election,'' Edwards said. ''That bothers me if 1,500 people have been disenfranchised.''
Good luck to the judge who gets this sucker in his or her docket. I wonder if Steven Smith will add this to his list of complaints from that primary as well.
Thanks again to Capitol Annex for the catch.
UPDATE: Sonia rounds up news reports of other e-voting problems in Texas.
Tory has a long piece on the eventual fate of the Woodlands, whose non-annexation treaty with Houston expires in 2011. There's pros and cons to its absorption by Houston; assuming that Conroe doesn't beat us to the punch, it'll be interesting to see how that plays out. Whoever is looking to succeed Bill White as Mayor, you better start thinking about this now. Check it out.
Nice article in the Observer about the Texas Parent PAC and its rather impressive debut in the March primaries. One thing to highlight:
In addition to sponsoring the five pro-voucher challengers, Leininger funded a second entity, the Future of Texas Alliance PAC, to aid Republican incumbents such as Grusendorf and Rep. Elvira Reyna (R-Mesquite), whom the Parent PAC had targeted.[...]
Parent PAC is now a significant player in Texas politics. Carolyn Boyle still has her work cut out for her. She’s busy with a few runoff elections. Then she will focus on the November elections and supporting a slate of Democrats and Republicans to ensure that whenever the Legislature reopens its debate on financing and improving schools, it will pay more attention to PTA moms.
This suggests to me that the Dems' failure to field a candidate against Reyna was an even bigger missed opportunity than I first thought. A decent Dem candidate might have been able to peel away some of those Parent PACers who voted to oust Reyna in the GOP primary. Such a candidate might have been able to convince the PAC not to bother with a primary challenge, or to be in a position to woo them had it failed. The district is not as Republican as you might think, so who knows? Maybe with enough crossover votes, it would have been attainable. Now, of course, those potential crossovers are gone for good, since the Parent PAC achieved its goal there. It's good that there's one less pro-voucher vote now, but still, it's a missed opportunity. Link via Capitol Annex.
When I read that the Washington Post's new Republican activist blogger was once a speechwriter for Sen. John Cornyn, I wondered if he had a hand in some of the more, er, colorful things that our junior senator has said lately. Via Atrios, it turns out that young Ben was, at least indirectly, responsible for the infamous box turtle statement that was in a prepared speech Cornyn gave to the Heritage Foundation. (Cornyn, in a rare moment of restraint, skipped that remark when actually delivering the speech. But someone wrote it for him, and it would seem that someone was Ben Domenech. I'm sure his new colleagues at the Post are so proud.)
Next question: Did Domenech have a hand in this embarrassing chapter of Cornyn's career?
And believe it or not, he's saying the right things, at least for now.
Gov. Rick Perry on Tuesday solicited business support for an overhaul of state taxes and said it would be a mistake for legislators to simply use a $4.3 billion surplus to provide limited cuts in school taxes when they convene April 17."I say let's not substitute speed for substance," Perry told the Texas Association of Manufacturers, a new business group that offered support for the concept of a broad-based business tax that the governor is expected to offer to lawmakers.
[...]
Perry noted that a number of legislators would rather use a $4.3 billion surplus, forecast by Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn, as a "ticket on a fast train" out of town.
But, he said, that approach would provide for a lower, one-time-only cut in school taxes that could soon disappear.
"It may be more of a challenge to reach an agreement on comprehensive tax changes, but it is a challenge we should take head-on because it is the right thing to do," Perry said.
I've expressed plenty of skepticism about Rick Perry's willingness to actually push the concept of a broad-based business tax in the past, so I'll give credit where it's due. This is what he needs to be saying going into the special session. Good on him for that.
It's just a start, of course. There will be plenty more pressure from the "don't tax me, I'm special!" forces, and it remains to be seen how Perry reacts to that. There are still forces that favor shifting more of the burden to sales taxes, despite the utter inequity of such a shift and its abject (and well deserved) failure last time around. And just because Perry may have finally gotten religion on the need for a saner tax system doesn't mean he's serious about properly funding schools. His fixation despite all reason on the idiotic 65% rule, plus other ideological agenda items like vouchers, leave him plenty of room to continue being the bad guy that we've known since 2001. This may be a good start, but there's a long way to go.
UPDATE: In the Pink adds just the right touch to the discussion.
UPDATE: A twofer from Eye on Williamson.
Barbara Radnofsky will hold an event at her new campaign headquarters on Friday, at which several candidates and officeholders, including gubernatorial nominee Chris Bell, will formally endorse her for the runoff. I got a robocall from the Radnofsky campaign last night, and I understand there are three statewide mailers in the works, so they're clearly focused on winning that race. That's good to see.
Anyway, the details of the event Friday:
Place: Radnofsky U.S. Senate Campaign Headquarters
Address: 1770 St. James Place, Suite 660A, Houston
Date: Friday, March 24
Time: 1:30 p.m.
Full press release beneath the fold.
Houston, Texas March 20, 2006
Bell, Democrats to announce endorsement of Radnofsky.
Press Conference: Last Tango in Texas-Bell, Democrats to Endorse Radnofsky over Gene "Can't Dance" Kelly
Place: Radnofsky U.S. Senate Campaign Headquarters
Address: 1770 St. James Place, Suite 660A, Houston
Date: Friday, March 24
Time: 1:30 p.m.
In a unified effort to support the only candidate who can beat Kay Bailey Hutchison in the general election, Texas Democratic Gubernatorial candidate Chris Bell will endorse U.S. Senate candidate Barbara Ann Radnofsky over her runoff opponent at a press conference in Houston.
"Barbara Radnofsky isn't just the best choice, she's the only choice. As I go forward with a real opportunity to beat Rick Perry, I need this tough lady campaigning for the U.S. Senate, making an aggressive case for the New Mainstream. She's fighting the tough fight for veterans, for teachers and for all Texans, and I know as a longtime friend of Barbara's that she has the sharp mind and moral courage needed to carry our banner high," says Bell.
Texas Democratic Party Chairman Charles Soechting, Agriculture Commissioner candidate Hank Gilbert, Harris County Democratic Party Chair Gerry Birnberg, Black Dems President James Robertson, elected officials and Democratic candidates will also attend. This unified effort to support Radnofsky began in San Marcos at the State Democratic Executive Committee meeting on March 18, when every member personally stood and voiced their support of the Radnofsky campaign.
"I believe this man [Radnofsky opponent Eugene Kelly] is a Republican plant. It's no coincidence that, for more than a decade, Gene 'can't-dance' Kelly, reaches the general election,rolls over, and plays dead for his Republican opponent," wrote Soechting in a letter endorsing Radnofsky for the April 11 runoff.
Ron Bozman, production manager of the "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and Academy Award-winning producer of "Silence of the Lambs" endorsed Radnofsky's campaign saying, "The dancer's dead. Don't let him chainsaw the Party."
Radnofsky will discuss the importance of the runoff, highlight her campaign efforts to win, and cover her stances on health care, education, and veterans' affairs. "I've challenged my opponent to a debate, but he hasn't responded. Perhaps I should challenge him to a dance," says Radnofsky, referring to Kelly's name similarity with deceased dancer and Hollywood entertainer Gene Kelly.
Early voting for the runoff begins April 3 and ends April 7, with regular voting on Tuesday, April 11.
This event will also mark the official opening of Radnofsky's new campaign headquarters.
###
Campaign Contacts:
Katie Floyd, Communications Director, 713-858-9391, katie.floyd@radnofsky.com
Seth Davidson, Campaign Manager, 713-858-6256, seth@radnofsky.com
Barbara Ann Radnofsky US Senate 2006
Boyd Richie has now responded to South Texas Chisme's questionnaire, meaning that all three announced candidates for Chair of the Texas Democratic Party have given answers - you can see Glen Maxey's here and Charlie Urbina-Jones' here. Kudos to the candidates for their responsiveness, and to STxC for taking the initiative to ask the questions.
Meanwhile, Richie picked up some nice endorsements, and Maxey continued his online campaign for support. I'm going to need to read all these answers again and see if I have a strong preference. Right now, I can't say I'd be unhappy with any of these gentlemen, and that's a very good thing.
I got the same email as Matt, but he posted first so I'll quote him:
The Texas Criminal Justice Coalition today announced it would testify on Wednesday, March 22, before the House Corrections Committee in the Texas Capitol. The Coalition is expected to tell committee members that the current prison overcrowding problem cannot be sustained and that practical, cost-effective, and pro-family solutions to Texas’ probation system should be pursued.Coalition Executive Director Ana Yanez-Correa and Ann del Llano, also of the Coalition, will address the cost of Texas’ probation system and offer recommendations to reduce revocations and recidivism. Coalition representatives Molly Totman and Dominic Gonzales will also testify and make recommendations related to the Governor's Criminal Justice Advisory Council’s recent report. Coalition partners are also expected to testify on other aspects of the committee’s interim work.
For more information on the Coalition’s work, click on www.criminaljusticecoalition.org
What: Texas Criminal Justice Coalition Testimony, House Corrections Committee
When: Hearing Begins 9:00 a.m., Wednesday, March 22
Where: E2.016, Capitol Extension, Texas State Capitol, Austin, Texas
Scott, of course, has way more on this. Be sure also to read Aaron Pena's piece on abuses in the juvenile justice system.
UPDATE: Notes from the morning's testimony from Scott here and here.
You've seen the movies. Now, ready or not, here comes Star Wars - the TV show.
The series will be set between episodes three and four of the film saga.It would cover the 20 years in the life of Luke Skywalker growing up that remains a mystery to most film-goers.
[Producer Rick] McCallum said there would be "a whole bunch of new characters" and the series would be "much more dramatic and darker".
So, basically, we're talking Smallville set on Tatooine, except that Clark Kent doesn't know that he's anything special yet. Sounds like a ratings bonanza to me!
Link via Atrios, who notes that Luke didn't exactly lead an exciting life on the home planet. Ah, but what's a little continuity among fanboys?
If you live in the Houston area and have not had the opportunity to meet Shane Sklar yet, there's going to be a fundraiser for him next week. Here are the details:
You Are Cordially Invited To A Fundraiser For Shane SklarDemocrat for U.S. Congress, 14th District of Texas
Thursday, March 30
4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.
Texas Mediation and Arbitration Center Courtroom
One Riverway, 11th Floor
777 South Post Oak Lane
Houston, TexasHosted by
The attorneys of Kacal, Adams and Law P.C.
Endorsed By
National Education Association
Texas State Teachers Association
Texas Farm Bureau AGFUND
AFL-CIO/COPEFor More Information, Call 361-575-2006
If money is what it takes to put a Congressional race on the media radar, then I think this one may make it. I could see Sklar raising a half million dollars or so and forcing Ron Paul to start hitting up his national network for support. If you want to help make that happen and meet a dynamic young candidate in the process, give a call and make plans to be there next Thursday.
Dan Patrick, Republican nominee for SD7, is back on the air thanks to the generosity of his general election opponents.
Federal Communications Commission rules require Patrick to give equal airtime to his opponents if he continues his show after filing for office. But the agency doesn't get involved if opponents sign a waiver."They don't need our approval," said Rebecca Fisher, an FCC spokeswoman. "It's a private agreement, the terms of which are handled between those two parties."
[...]
Patrick was prepared to be off the air until November if need be, he said, although he planned to contact his challengers — Democrat F. Michael Kubosh and Libertarian candidate Mary Ann Bryan — to seek permission to get back on air. Bryan signed the agreement, although she did not win the nomination of the Libertarian Party at last weekend's county convention.
"They realize it's a 73 percent Republican district," Patrick said. "What you are dealing with is two good people who realize there is no sense in keeping me from making a living. I'm the only one during the (primary) campaign who had to give up his job."
Umm, isn't Dan Patrick the owner of KSEV?
In 2000, Patrick and former Texas Senator, Mike Richards (also a Houston talk show host), worked out a management / partnership arrangement with Lieberman Broadcasting, whereby Dan and Mike would manage KSEV as ownership partners. Patrick would serve as VP and GM and together they would build their talk and news audience [...]
I'm sure his show gets better ratings with him in the host's chair and all, but isn't it a wee bit disingenuous to suggest that he's got no income stream while he's off the air? I'm just asking.
Kubosh, who was unopposed in the Democratic primary, approached Patrick about how he could help the radio personality get back on air."I never ran for Senate to keep Dan Patrick off the air," Kubosh said, noting that he decided to run last summer, long before Patrick announced his intentions.
I've got no quarrel with the arrangement Patrick made with Kubosh and Bryan. If they're fine with it, then I'm fine with it. I just don't understand the poor-out-of-work-me schtick that Patrick is giving here.
"The campaigning is over," [Patrick] said. "I'm just going to go back to being a talk-show host, and that includes talking about issues from Iraq to Austin."
May I suggest that you show some gratitude to Kubosh and Bryan for letting go back to being a talk show host by inviting them to join you on the air for some of that discussion? I'd call it a public service to foster that kind of open debate.
You may recall the task force that Governor Perry appointed to study the lessons learned from the Hurricane Rita evacuations, which issued its report exactly one month ago. Today, Governor Perry is expected to sign an executive order to make some of its recommendations happen.
I don't have any particular quibbles with this plan, which drew praise from both Harris County Judge Robert Eckels and Mayor Bill White's office via Frank Michel. I am curious as to how much some of this is going to cost, and how hard it will be to get the funding in place for each aspect of it. I'll say again that this is the sort of thing that the current budget surplus is best suited for, since many of these items are likely to be one-time expenditures or have most of their costs up front. I don't intend my mention of cost as a criticism, I'm just pointing out that securing the needed funds is a multi-step process, and we're only at the beginning here. I don't want to be reading stories a year from now about how some of these solutions have not been implemented because the bill to authorize funding for them is tied up in committee because of a dispute over an unrelated side item.
The executive order will require the governor's Division of Emergency Management to develop a detailed plan for implementing contraflow highways during evacuations.The division also will be charged with developing a plan for distributing fuel to service stations and making fuel available to motorists along evacuation routes.
[...]
The governor's order also will:
- Create a new unified command and control structure within each of the state's 24 councils of government. Each region will have an "incident commander" to oversee evacuation issues in that area.
- Instruct the emergency management division to develop a more detailed statewide evacuation and shelter plan.
- Call for the division to work with local school districts, colleges and universities to identify buses that may be used in some evacuations and develop a system for coordinating their use.
- Call for the division to develop a statewide evacuation and shelter plan for persons with special needs.
- Instruct the division to create a computer database of people with special needs so the state will know who and where they are when evacuations are ordered. It also must develop criteria for evacuating people from special needs facilities.
- Direct the Texas Department of Transportation to prioritize construction that needs to be done along evacuation routes.
Perry's executive order will not address the task force's biggest recommendation — to make the governor the sole decision-maker on when evacuations should occur. That would require a change in state law.[...]
[Perry spokeswoman Kathy] Walt said Perry might add hurricane preparedness to the special session set to begin April 17, but only if lawmakers first pass a public school finance plan that addresses a Texas Supreme Court order.
"Once there is a bill on his desk addressing that, he's willing to open it to other issues," she said.
If the Lege can beat the June 1 deadline for school finance reform, which also happens to be the start of hurricane season, I'll be impressed. Let's just leave it at that.
Another appeal in the DeLay money laundering case, another opportunity to complain about judicial bias.
On Wednesday, one 3rd Court of Appeals panel will hear Earle's appeal of a district judge's ruling throwing out charges against DeLay, R-Sugar Land, of conspiring to violate the state's election code.There are still charges pending against DeLay on money laundering that accuse him of participating in a scheme to convert illegal corporate cash into money Republican candidates could use in 2002 Texas House races. DeLay denies any wrongdoing in the case.
The other 3rd Court panel is reviewing an appeal brought by DeLay's co-defendants, Jim Ellis and John Colyandro. It challenges the legal theory of Earle's original money laundering indictment brought against the men.
The issues are so similar to the charges against DeLay, that if Colyandro and Ellis win, the case against DeLay could evaporate.
One 3rd Court judge who serves on both panels, Justice Alan Waldrop, was a paid lobbyist for Texans for Lawsuit Reform, or TLR, in 2002, according to Texas Ethics Commission records.
That political committee worked closely with the DeLay-founded Texans for a Republican Majority, TRMPAC, in affecting the outcome of the elections for the Texas House that year.
And during the 2003 legislative session, Waldrop worked with TLR consultant Chuck McDonald in coaching Republican House members on how to pass major tort reform legislation. McDonald has been a grand jury witness in the case involving DeLay, Ellis and Colyandro.
Rep. Pete Gallego, D-Alpine, chairman of the Mexican-American Legislative Caucus, temporarily blocked the tort reform bill under House rules because of Waldrop's coaching. Gallego said Waldrop is "brilliant and a good jurist" but said Waldrop's ties to TLR make it inappropriate for him to be hearing anything related to TRMPAC.
"There should be the same sort of discussion about Judge Waldrop as there was about Judge Perkins," Gallego said.
Another judge who is serving on the Wednesday panel hearing Earle's appeal, Justice David Puryear, gave $250 in 1996 to a Republican candidate who was seeking to oust Earle. At that time, Puryear was an elected Republican county court-at-law judge in Austin.
The candidate, Shane Phelps, had been recruited by the GOP to run against Earle after the prosecutor failed in his effort to convict U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of misuse of office.
[...]
[DeLay defense attorney Dick] DeGuerin on Monday said Perkins' situation was unique because he was making political donations while sitting on the court. DeGuerin said the actions of the 3rd Court justices all occurred before they took the oath of office as a judge.
"Everybody who becomes a judge has done something in their past. They've represented one side or another," DeGuerin said. "If they took the oath of office and believe in the oath and impartially administer justice, that's all you can ask for."
Well, now, that's in the eye of the beholder, isn't it? You opened this can of worms, Dick, and you were the one pushing a ridiculously broad definition of "bias" when it suited your purposes. If this comes back to bite you in the ass, you have no one to blame but yourself.
The good news, at least for those of us who believe that there comes a time in any litigation to shoot all the lawyers and let the process move forward, is that Travis County DA Ronnie Earle doesn't appear (yet) to be interested in pursuing a recusal motion. So maybe we'll have a ruling in a matter of days instead of weeks. I agree with the contention that the ruling on the Ellis/Colyandro motion is more important, since if they win there won't be any crime to prosecute for all intents and purposes. Since their claim is that money laundering is only illegal if cash is involved and not checks, I have a hard time imagining how any rational judge could side with them, but you never know. Stay tuned.
Robin Holzer attended the Metro meeting on the Universities light rail line and gives a report on what happened. Read the whole thing, as it's more detailed than the Chron story (note to Rad Sallee: Robin is a girl, not a boy) or the ridiculously lightweight KTRK piece (give them credit, though - at least they had something), but in particular note this:
[D]istrict City Council members are convening nine smaller meetings in April in neighborhoods all along the corridor. And METRO will start the federally-required public meeting process soon after.If you're wondering whether you should participate in this process, you should, and Mayor White explained it best: "You are participating in an important process of building Houston for the next generation."
Indeed. Attend and be heard.
Meant to blog about this sooner, but you know how it goes: You may recall our open letter to Roger Owen, the nutball anti-gay candidate in CD01. If it wasn't clear in that post, Vince Leibowitz did email him a copy of it, and he got a response shortly thereafter, which you can see here. Not too surprisingly, he did not deal directly with the substantive issues. Later in the week, the Longview News-Journal did a piece on the letter and the response; Vince has a full copy of it here. It's not the most incisive political writing you'll ever encounter, but at least it was something. Finally, Vince notes that there may be an independent candidate running in CD01, if he can muster the signatures. He may be a nut, too, but until we know that for sure, he's worth checking into.
Patrick Franklin, the State House candidate Owen insulted during the primary, posts his thoughts on the matter. He's more forgiving than I might have been in his shoes.
I agree completely with Eye on Williamson: This Statesman article on how school districts spend their money, doesn't tell us anything we don't already know. Different districts have different needs, and they're in a better position to know what those needs are than the Governor. Which is why, once again, that the 65 Percent Rule that Rick Perry imposed by magisterial fiat last year, is so utterly misguided.
Note well:
The study also found greater spending variations when it compared higher- and lower-performing districts among their peers in the same class than when comparing higher- and lower-performing districts to each other.For example, Palo Pinto, a small district outside of Fort Worth that was rated exemplary by the state, spent less than 50 percent on instruction in the 2003-04 school year because it has higher transportation and utility costs, Clark said.
By comparison, the Hamilton school district near Waco, also rated exemplary that year, spent about 64 percent.
Lower-performing districts tended to spend more on instruction than higher-performing districts.
Different districts have different needs. One size does not fit all. Why is this so hard?
I linked to this Chron article last week on the difficulties many eligible Texans have enrolling and staying enrolled in the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Yesterday, I got an email from Jay Aiyer, who had a sensible suggestion for how to resolve this, which I present below:
One of the biggest tragedies facing our state is the growing number of uninsured children. The Children's Health Insurance Program, administered by the state, was supposed to bridge the gap and provide insurance for millions of uninsured Texans. Instead, they have managed to make a bad situation worse. Allowing a private vendor to take hundreds of thousands of kids off the list is not simply incompetence of the highest order, but immoral. The answer is simple, but it requires a different approach.
If you want to enroll low-income children into CHIP, go where the children are.
When I enrolled my daughter at school, I had to provide a myriad of information--name, contact numbers, immunization records, proof of residency, etc. But I was never asked about health insurance. By asking that basic question, a school would then have access to the insurance status of millions of children. Then based on residency and school lunch information, the District would have a ready pool of students who can be determined if they are CHIP eligible. The information would be computerized, and would allow millions of children to be enrolled automatically at their school.
The process is a basic one. But it requires the State using a little common sense and, most importantly, communicating with local entities.
In case you are wondering if this problem could ever really work, it already does, in states like California, North Carolina, Illinois and Washington. Texas needs to join in and save the lives of children accross this state.
Sounds like a good approach to me. Leave a comment and let me know what you think. Thanks, Jay!
NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue is going to retire in July.
The 65-year-old commissioner has led the league since 1989, when he succeeded Pete Rozelle, and had recently signed a two-year contract extension to complete the television and labor deals.He finally got that done 12 days ago, finishing the most arduous labor negotiations since the league and union agreed on a free agency-salary cap deal in 1992.
"I believe that now is a positive time to make the transition to a new commissioner," Tagliabue said in a statement.
ESPN's Chris Mortensen reported on March 9 that Tagliabue was expected to exercise a clause in his contract with league owners in which he becomes a "senior executive" consultant with a significant compensation package. Tagliabue and the NFL did not comment at the time.
Tagliabue will be available to serve in a senior executive/advisory role through May 31, 2008 once a new commissioner is selected.
Roger Goodell, the NFL's chief operating officer, and Atlanta general manager Rich McKay are the two leading candidates to succeed Tagliabue. Baltimore Ravens president Dick Cass is considered a dark horse.
The NFL has done very well under Tags' watch, and that includes their recovery from the 1982 work stoppage, which (thanks in part to a weaker players' union than that of MLB) has generally avoided labor strife since then. Whoever gets to follow him will have big shoes to fill.
Stina suggests a possible replacement: Condoleeza Rice. That would be...interesting. I can only wonder what her response would be if she came to feel that the NFL may someday be threatened by another league.
Since John McConnell's account of the State Democratic Executive Committee (SDEC) meeting was made public, several SDEC members have sent out critical emails about it. The most detailed one came from the wonderfully named Zada True-Courage (wife of CD21 candidate John Courage). I've reproduced it beneath the fold, so click on and read.
I have reiterated time and again to Mr. McConnell that the bulk of the business that occurs at the party occurs in the committees, the committee reports are brought to the body and accepted. I would like for you to imagine what kind of things would not get accomplished if we had to hash everything out during the SDEC meeting. Committee meetings are open to all who wish to attend, and visitors are welcome to offer their comments to the committee.
Actually a number of things did happen yesterday, I am sorry Mr. McConnell chose to miss the committee meetings and just attend the SDEC meeting, he missed some very interesting items.
I am the co-chair of the Grassroots Committee with Dr. Dennis Teal, who by the way in my opinion is one of the most WONDERFUL ASSETS we have on the SDEC. (He is a real diamond in my book) He has worked tirelessly for the past four years crisscrossing this state to provide Grassroots training for anyone who wanted to show up. He deserves a hearty THANKS! You can write him at: tealrun@inu.net
In our committee we heard an idea presented by the Progressive Populist Caucus that we hold hearings around the state in April and May and listen to Democrats' ideas for the platform. This information would be condensed by volunteers from the PPC and others into bullet points to be presented to the platform committee. We moved and accepted this motion.
We also had a report from our terrific DNC Field Directors. We heard from Anthony Gutierrez and Bryan Pendleton who have spent two straight months on the road. They have been doing training on the Voter Management System. We also heard from Sondra Holton who is the Field Director at the State Party Office. All are working hard and they've come up with some ideas on how to consolidate all the many lists into something that can be useful going forward. Sondra also reported that our Texas Democratic Party Handbook (AKA Grassroots Manual) was being printed and shrinkwrapped as we met. This is also available for your own printing on the Texas Democratic Party Website. This book has been the labor of love of many Grassroots Committtee Members over the past several terms. Karl Siverman took the initiative to rewrite the book, there is new information as well as old, to enable it to be in a consistent format and to make it more professional. Karl spent over 500 hours on this. He wasn't alone many of us on the Grassroots Committee and others participated in review and offering information but Karl did the lion's share and he deserves a hearty THANKS. (you can write him at silverman@ghg.net )
We heard from Jennifer Dean who is charge of technology and the Voter Management System at the TDP. She has done some very good research on Voter Management Systems and she presented a new one to us and asked for approval to go forward with this system. This system is light years ahead of what we have now and will enable two way information. This will go far to helping us build a database of voters that we actually know about. We moved that she should go forward with the new system.
I also attended the Rules Committee. A rule change was offered but proposer was delayed in traffic and there seemed to be questions on wording so the item was tabled. In the resolutions committee, I did not attend, however I did hear Ms. Hadnott's report. She said the Resolutions Committee had voted to incorporate the four resolutions received in with the work of the State Convention. She said these would be considered first.
For finance report the $23k was the surplus of Revenue over Expenses, there was no report of Cash on Hand. Unfortunately, I could not attend the Finance Committee as I was attending the Nominations and Legal Committee.
We all must realize how important it is for us to come out and WORK for Barbara Radnofsky. She the most capable individual for the job. Please work very hard informing your friends and neighbors that this vote is extremely important. We DO NOT want Gene Kelly at to top of our ticket again as he was in 2000. Barbara can beat Hutchison and she'll do a much better job than "Rubber Stamp Kay".
Finally there will be an election on April 22nd to replace Charles Soechting. Charles has done some very good things for the party and I really appreciate his willingness to stand up to the DNC and to be feisty. He's always told me he wasn't going to do the same old things and believed in change, and by golly he is true to his word. Charles has done a lot to be more inclusive and to include the SDEC more. We still have a distance to go but he's started us down the right road. I have also found him to be extremely engaged. I can't tell you the number times I have had to call on him for help and he's always been willing to listen and has responded.Thanks and Good luck Charles!
I will be sending a separate communication to TXDEMOSD25 e-group on election.
Zada True-Courage
Judge Belinda Hill has granted a defense motion to delay the start of Andrea Yates' retrial until June 22 because two defense witnesses were not available until then.
Yates attorney George Parnham argued this morning before Hill that the witnesses — neuropsychologist George Ringholz and psychiatrist Lucy Puryear — would only be available for trial in 90 days.[...]
After the hearing, prosecutor Alan Curry said the delay will not affect the government's case against Yates and will allow prosecutors to further prepare for trial.
Seems pretty straightforward. At least now we can (hopefully!) have the Lay/Skilling trial in the rearview before this one starts.
There are two things that you should take away from this story about Tom DeLay and his re-election campaign being in legal limbo as the Scandal-Go-Round turns. One:
Former DeLay spokesman Michael Scanlon, who was an Abramoff business partner, has pleaded guilty to fraud charges in the case, and a former DeLay deputy chief of staff, Tony Rudy, remains under intense scrutiny by prosecutors.[...]
Documents released by federal prosecutors made it clear that Rudy has been in significant legal jeopardy. He is believed to be cooperating with federal officials, and sources close to the case said he is expected to reach a plea deal with the Justice Department. But details of those negotiations have not surfaced.
That's one former staffer of DeLay's who has pleaded guilty to felony charges, and another who is in the process of working out a plea agreement. Two actual felons - not just "under investigation", not just "indicted", but two people who worked for Tom DeLay who have pleaded or are about to plead guilty to felony criminal charges. And - this is the crucial part - neither one has anything to do with Ronnie Earle. Even if DeLay and his other three indicted associates win unequivocal victories in the TRMPAC cases, even if the most casual observer ultimately concludes that the whole thing was a political hack job from the get go, DeLay's roster of former staffers will include two convicted felons.
Two:
The prosecutors' documents depicted an unnamed congressional aide, separately identified as Rudy, improperly influencing congressional action on behalf of Abramoff's Indian gaming clients. But there was no indication that DeLay was aware of Rudy's activities.What Rudy has said or will say to prosecutors about DeLay could prove pivotal in whether the lawmaker is cleared or gets pulled more directly into the federal investigation, said lawyers close to the case.
In court documents released in January, Rudy was described as "Staffer A," who helped Abramoff stop legislation that would have hurt his clients. One bill opposed by Indian gaming interests would have banned Internet gambling; another, opposed by magazine publishers, would have raised postal rates.
In return, Abramoff funneled $50,000 to the political consulting firm of Rudy's wife, Lisa, prosecutors said in court documents. The money was "obtained from (Abramoff's) clients who would and did benefit from Staffer A's official actions," the prosecutors said. Rudy then left Congress to work directly for Abramoff.
[DeLay defense attorney Richard] Cullen said DeLay had no knowledge of any work by Rudy on behalf of Abramoff's clients.
Carol Alvarado, the embattled former Mayor Pro Tem of Houston, has repeatedly said that the staffers from the Pro Tem office who authorized improper bonuses for themselves did so entirely without her knowledge. Many people, myself included, have said that she should have had a better handle on what was going on in her office. I say Tom DeLay should be held to that same standard as well. Whatever judgment is to be visited on Alvarado for her lack of oversight should be visited on DeLay as well. It's that simple.
Two candidates for Chair of the Texas Democratic Party have responded so far to South Texas Chisme's questionnaire. Glen Maxey was the first to answer - his responses here. Later on Sunday, Charlie Urbina-Jones sent in his answers, which you can read here. I consider such responsiveness to be a good sign.
Bride of Acheron will support whoever does the most to make sure Barbara Radnofsky wins the runoff on April 11 against Gene Kelly. She also sensibly points out that not having a real candidate at the top of the ticket could have a bad effect on downballot races, especially at the countywide level. I hope that all members of the Run and Hide bridage will keep that in mind.
Speaking of Radnofsky, she has another guest post at Capitol Annex, with a report from the State Democratic Executive Committee (SDEC) meeting, where she was unanimously endorsed by all SDEC representatives. That's good to hear. We also have this report from Bexar County Precinct Chair John McConnell, which gives some other good news and some not so good news from the meeting.
UPDATE: Via Jeb in the comments, Boyd Richie's comments are here.
Via Banjo, I too would like to extend a (belated) Happy Birthday to Slingin' Sammy Baugh, the first truly great quarterback in the NFL and to this day, the only punter to average better than 50 yards per kick for an entire season. Oh, and he was an outstanding defensive back, too, in those old two-way player days:
His finest day was when he threw four touchdown passes and intercepted four passes in a 42-20 victory over Detroit.
That was in 1943. Imagine how famous he'd be today if SportsCenter had existed back then. Happy birthday, Sammy Baugh!
As you know, one of the runoff elections on April 11 will be in HD146 between longterm incumbent and key Craddick lieutanant Al Edwards and challenger Borris Miles. The primary was hard-fought, with Edwards winning a solid majority in the early vote but falling below 50% based on a strong Primary Day showing by Miles and Al Bennett. The result of this runoff will be another indicator of the viability of Tom Craddick as House Speaker.
On Thursday, March 16, I reported that Bennett had officially endorsed Miles, thus unifying the opposition to incumbent Edwards and increasing the odds of turnover for the seat. It's now Monday, March 20, and as yet, this fact has not been reported by the Chronicle. It hasn't even warranted a mention in their new politics blog. (They're all over the petition-efforts by the two not-yet-on-the-ballot gubernatorial hopefuls, however.)
So. Will the Chron write anything more about this race? If so, when? And is there a technical term for this kind of indifference? Leave your suggestions in the comments.
Couple of worthwhile articles on the imminent Andrea Yates retrial in the Chron today. First, on why the insanity defense is both a terribly blunt instrument as well as a crapshoot.
Between 2001 and 2004, four Texas women became famous — notorious, actually — for the deaths they inflicted on their children. Two opted for drowning, one grabbed a knife and the other used a heavy rock.But their choice of method was less significant than the method in their madness. All were convinced they were doing right by their children, according to their attorneys. So intense was their disturbed mental state that it was capable of overpowering the strongest, most basic human instinct.
In the aftermath of their horrific acts, the most pertinent question was not the most obvious one. Why they did it was not really answerable except in the vaguest of ways: They're insane. Of greater urgency was the one thrown in the lap of the legal system: What to do with them?
In each case, prosecutors offered the same response: Try them, convict them, send them to prison — save for the case of Andrea Yates, where they chose the extreme option of attempting to have her executed. Even a Harris County jury would not agree to that, convicting her of capital murder and giving her a life sentence for drowning her children in the bathtub of their Clear Lake home.
[...]
Although they won a conviction in the Yates case, prosecutors have had less luck with the others. Deanna Laney, who bludgeoned two sons to death outside of their Tyler home in 2003, was found not guilty by reason of insanity. Lisa Diaz of Plano, who drowned her two daughters later that year, received the same verdict. Last month, Dena Schlosser's trial ended in a hung jury, with 11 voting for acquittal. Prosecutors intend to retry Schlosser, also from Plano, who cut off her infant daughter's arms in 2004.
"The fact that you have different results in these cases is itself a problem," said Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor who has written about the insanity defense. "I've yet to meet anyone who seriously argues Andrea Yates was not insane. But by sticking to a rigid standard of only knowing right and wrong, you exclude the most common forms of insanity: people responding to evil voices."
Also, the enigma of Rusty Yates. I don't know the man, but I feel about him more or less as his friend Bob Holmes does.
Even after [Rusty] divorced [Andrea] last year, he continued a campaign to get her out of prison and into treatment. But some say that kind of support was hard to see before the children's deaths."You've got a pre-June 20th Rusty and a post-June 20th Rusty," said Bob Holmes, who met Yates in 1989, when the couple was dating.
Holmes insists that Rusty Yates, vilified on Web sites and radio and TV talk shows, "isn't a monster."
But Holmes is counted among those who knew the couple and who question the way he dealt with his wife's mental illness, which seemed to materialize in their marriage after the birth of their fourth child, Luke.
"Did he lose his children? Yes. Do I feel bad for him? Absolutely," said Holmes, who along with his wife, Debbie, met then-Andrea Kennedy 20 years ago. "But he's the one person who could have stopped it."
As I recall (not mentioned in this story), it was at Rusty's insistence that Andrea be taken off the meds that she was on for her illness after Luke's birth so she could get pregnant again. If there's one single thing that Yates should be faulted for, that's it.
Meet the new Mrs. Yates. From the picture, she's an attractive woman. Hope she knows what she's getting into.
Hey, Dwight! Will anyone be liveblogging the Yates trial as they've been the Lay/Skilling trial? I think that would be very informative if so. Just my opinion.
Eye on Williamson brings the best quote I've heard this week, from the RSS feed for the subscription-only Texas Weekly:
While former Comptroller John Sharp and the rest of Gov. Rick Perry's tax reform commission works on proposed revisions to the state's business taxes, they're starting to hear more noise from lawmakers and lobbyists. That's not unusual with a special session approaching, but it's dangerous for tax bills: An unprotected tax bill lasts about as long as free pot at a rock concert and isn't nearly as much fun.
Dude. Rock on, dude.
Seriously, when I start to see articles in which Rick Perry steadfastly defends the TTRC's business tax plan against each member of the self-interested hordes, then I'll believe there's a chance it could happen. Until then, I expect more of what we've already seen, spiced up with a little extra bitterness from the primary campaigns.
At this point, I don't know if the rumors about Bob Gammage throwing his support to Carole Keeton Strayhorn will turn out to be true or not. But I do know this: If that does happen, then those obituaries I referred to will all report that Tony Sanchez held down the body of the state Democratic Party while Bob Gammage repeatedly whacked it with a baseball bat. Choose your next move carefully, Bob, that's all I'm going to say for now.
Remember Debutant, the local blogger whose sister was a college classmate of mine and who recently had a stem cell transplant to treat Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia that is Philadelphia Chromosome positive? There's a blood drive being held for her today:
TODAY!!!!!!Saturday, MARCH 18th from 9am to 5pm-
St. Maximilian Catholic Church
(on West Rd./Wheatland, west or outside of Beltway 8) -is holding a Blood Drive in Debby's name.
Please donate.
*Even if you can't donate, maybe you can find someone who can.
I just gave at a blood drive at my office last week, so unfortunately I can't donate today. Maybe by posting this I can find some one else who can. St. Maximilian Kolbe Church is located at 10135 West Rd., Houston, TX 77064-5361, phone number (281) 955-7324. There's a map at that link - its between Beltway 8 and Jones Road north of 290 - and the church website is here. Please go and give if you can.
Christof points out that the impending completion of the HOV lane on the Southwest Freeway into downtown will be like a new rapid transit corridor, since it will make the Park and Ride/Express Bus system much more viable for people who live out that way.
Naturally, he also ties this in to the raging Richmond rail debate:
I've heard the suggestion made that METRO should simply run light rail on the HOV lane to avoid disrupting neighborhoods. That would be easier than rebuilding Richmond. But it's wrongheaded on every other count. Suburban commuters - the ones using the HOV lane now - would have a longer trip if they had to transfer to rail. And the inner neighborhoods wouldn't be served at all.If you want to build a suburban commuter service, you want park-and-ride lots, high speeds, and few stops. That's what we'll have in a few months. If you want to serve the city, you want stations in walkable neighborhoods with good pedestrian access, spaced closer to serve more people. That's the next task.
Your next opportunity to participate in said debate is Monday, March 20:
Southampton's Anne Clutterbuck of District C will be one of three Houston councilwomen presiding over a town hall meeting Monday concerning potential routes for the second leg of the Metropolitan Transit Association's light rail.She will be joined by Councilwomen Pam Holm of District G and Ada Edwards of District D.
The gathering, scheduled for 7 p.m. in the sanctuary of St. Luke's Church, 3471 Westheimer Road, will lay groundwork for smaller, community-based meetings. U.S. Rep. John Culberson, Houston Mayor Bill White and Metro President Frank Wilson are expected to attend.
A meeting of Metro's directors Feb. 16 concerning the rail line drew about 350 people, some of whom watched the proceedings from a break room on closed-circuit television after the board room filled to capacity.
Metro has set April to begin route evaluation, development of an environmental impact statement and preliminary engineering work. Preliminary findings are expected in October with construction projected to begin in August 2008.
Metro has plans to improve communications about this project.
Metro's board heard a staff report Thursday on the agency's new "Communication, Education and Awareness Plan," days before a crucial public meeting on a proposed University light rail line.Metro chairman David Wolff asked other board members to attend the Monday meeting. "I think we have to be visible," he said. "We have to be out there, we have to be consistent ... open ... factual."
President and CEO Frank Wilson added, "We need to do status reports and updates, so people will know where we are." He said there is "extreme interest from the community" about Metro's plans - particularly for the University line - along with "a lot of misinformation and a lot of fear."
[...]
Karen Marshall, Metro director of community outreach and government affairs, said the increased public information efforts include ads in news media and an enhanced Web site.
The site enables residents to submit questions and receive answers, read an online version of Metro Connections, the agency's newsletter, and sign up for "e-mail blasts" of news about Metro Solutions, its long-term transit plan.
Finally, a bit of good news for Richmond advocates: The city of West University Place gets it.
Opponents of a Metro light rail line being considered for Richmond Avenue found no allies in their fight to reroute the line to Westpark Drive at West University Place's City Council meeting Monday.State Rep. Martha Wong, R-District 134, and a small contingent of business owners and stakeholders trying to stop Metro from placing its University Line project along Richmond Avenue appeared before the council to gauge the city's interest in joining them in their effort to route the line on Westpark.
But council members said running the new line along Richmond would prove more beneficial to West U., as well as to people who would use the line to get to the Galleria and Greenway Plaza, the two major employment centers along its route.
[...]
Wong said the initial referendum called for the Westpark line to serve both Bellaire and West University Place, but Councilman Mike Woods said having the line run along Richmond makes more sense for the city.
"I don't think it's as appropriate for accessing major employment centers as it is on Richmond, which is what makes light rail successful," Woods said. "There are some very good reasons for it going down Richmond. Greenway Plaza and the Galleria are better served than they would be on Westpark."
Said councilman Dick Yehle, "My definition of a successful line is one that goes where I need to go. The line needs to go to places that people would otherwise drive to and for this line, that's the Galleria and Greenway Plaza."
Yes, I believe I've heard those arguments before. It's heartening to see that the words of the transportation wonks are taking hold.
And if you're a dog owner, here's another reason to favor Richmond over Westpark:
[Yehle] added that a dog park built last year on Westpark to serve West U. residents would likely be lost to construction."If you go on Westpark, we have a very successful dog park that solved a big issue in this city, and that would probably have to go away," he said.
'Nuff said. Link via blogHOUSTON.
The search for evidence in the investigation of improper bonuses to Mayor Pro Tem staff continues.
The key issue of whether city employees implicated in a payroll-padding scandal had approval from Councilwoman and former Mayor Pro Tem Carol Alvarado led prosecutors back to City Hall on Friday.Armed with grand jury subpoenas, investigators from the Harris County District Attorney's office and the Houston Police Department took computers from Alvarado's district office.
[...]
Prosecutors are seeking evidence of whether Alvarado, once charged with overseeing the pro tem office, knew about those payments. The former office manager, Rosita Hernandez, has told investigators the councilwoman did, District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal said. Another fired employee has also made that allegation.
"What we heard was that there were communications back and forth between the pro tem office and the district office," Rosenthal said. "We're basically looking to see if we can find any communications that either confirms or does not confirm whether or not Rosie Hernandez had the authority to do the things that she did."
He said the councilwoman and her staff members weren't targets at this stage of the investigation.
Alvarado has said she gave Hernandez autonomy to make budget decisions in the pro tem office, which handles some administrative functions for council offices. That trust was betrayed by employees, who she said forged her signature on documents authorizing some payments.
Alvarado's spokesman, Joe Householder, characterized Friday's action as routine for such a probe. "This is a normal part of the process, nothing we hadn't expected," he said.
Gerald Treece, an associate dean and law professor at South Texas College of Law, agreed. He called the move "pretty predictable."
"This may be exculpatory instead of incriminatory," he said."It could be to help her, not to hurt her."
Prosecutors likely think something criminal happened, he said. "The question is: Is this an isolated incident or systemic? They are looking to see whether the mayor pro tem's office is a de facto ATM."
Seems routine to me, too. Even in the absence of claims by Rosita Hernandez that Alvarado authorized her actions, for Rosenthal to not explore this avenue would be a dereliction of duty on his part. Maybe he'll find something and maybe he won't, but he surely can't allow for the possibility that Hernandez's attorney will some day claim that his failure to check into their claims about Alvarado constitutes reasonable doubt.
One more thing:
The subpoenas also sought information from BlackBerry e-mail devices carried by Alvarado's staff, and data archived on city servers housed outside council offices.
Free advice from a BlackBerry administrator to Chuck Rosenthal: The main thing that you should look for on those BlackBerries is PIN-to-PIN messages. Everything else can be found on the city's Exchange servers or with the users' ISPs if they set their handhelds up to receive email from more than one source. Maybe if the city has a policy of only retaining Exchange server backup tapes for a short period (a fairly common practice), you might be able to find something archived on a handheld that had been deleted in Outlook. I'd consider that a longshot.
Confusion over health insurance leaves children suffering
Three-year-old Ryla Woodard spent a weekend in the hospital earlier this year when she broke out in a rash, her fever spiked to 103 and doctors diagnosed her with mononucleosis.Just days later she lost her government-sponsored health coverage, and her family can't afford a second follow-up blood test to see if she's still infected with the virus that can cause fatigue and swelling, or even rupturing, of the spleen.
"She's complaining of a sore throat. It lingers in your system a while," said Ryla's mother, Traci Woodard, from the East Texas town of Orange. "Today I cannot take her anywhere to see if she still tests positive for mono because I have no health insurance. I'm hitting walls and locked doors."
Frank Madla, before the primary, on Carlos Uresti's attack against him for voting to allow the Child Health Insurance Program (CHIP)-cutting bill HB2292 to come to the floor of the Senate:
"If that (bill) is the only issue that he can come up with in 32 years of service, then bring it on," he said.
Any questions?
In the spirit of Saint Patrick's Day weekend, let me highlight this article on the freewheeling Irish music sessions at McGonigel's Mucky Duck. One part jam session, one part apprenticeship opportunity, it's a longstanding tradition that helps fuel the local Celtic scene. Want to learn how to play the pennywhistle or Scottish bagpipes? Show up at the Duck on Wednesday night and you can get started. Check it out.
I don't know any of the three gentlemen who have announced their intentions to run for Chair of the Texas Democratic Party. There's been a lot of emails whizzing around with this person endorsing that person and so on and so forth. I don't have a preference at this point, other than the fervent wish that we all remember to put aside any hurt feelings after a winner is chosen.
The one thing that could sway my opinion towards one of these candidates right now is if any of them answer South Texas Chisme's questionnaire. I'm hoping that all three do, so that I can make a truly informed choice. If not, well, at least I'll have a criterion for elimination.
BOR has printed a bunch of those emails I mentioned, in case you haven't seen them. If you've already made your mind up, you can express your preference by taking PDiddie's poll.
Best news I've heard this week.
Earl Abel's, the landmark coffee shop that locals have cherished since 1933, will continue operating at its current location under new ownership after today, which was slated to be the restaurant's last day.Jerry Abel, the namesake's son and current owner, said Tuesday that he has made a deal to sell the diner's concept, including the name, recipes and fixtures.
Though details about the handover are expected at a 10 a.m. news conference today, the San Antonio Express-News has learned the restaurant will belong to Arias Retail, a local company whose partners include Gene Larsen and Roger Arias.
The property where Earl Abel's sits now — a prime piece of real estate at Hildebrand and Broadway — has been sold to local developer Koontz McCombs. It plans to rezone the 2.4 acres and replace the restaurant with a luxury condominium high-rise.
"Now I'll have some place to go eat," Abel said. "I think it'll be all right."
Restaurant staffers said the new owners plan to reopen at the current location next Tuesday with expanded hours and offer three meals a day.
Current hours have been curtailed, due in part to a shrinking staff; breakfast hasn't been offered since March 3.
[...]
Restaurant staffers, many who have worked there for decades, say they've been called to a Friday meeting, where they'll be asked if they'd like to continue working.
They reported that once the restaurant reopens, it would remain at the current location for a few months before moving north to a spot on Austin Highway where Hometown Buffet was. Roger Arias declined to confirm those details.
The new location has since been confirmed. I was depressed about this when the news of Earl Abel's pending closure first hit, so I'm quite happy to hear that the place will live on, even if it's not in the original building. Thanks to Matt and The Jeffersonian for the link.
Another questionable memo from the Mayor Pro Tem's office has turned up, this time with the apparently forged initials of former Council member Gordon Quan, who was Mayor Pro Tem from 2002 to 2003.
The document with Quan's initials is dated December 2005 and appears to request that his council office be charged the cost of a newsletter to commemorate the end of his six-year council term. The memo refers to Quan as mayor pro tem, a post he left more than two years prior. It also bears a scrawled "GQ" that is different than other memos with Quan's initials that the Houston Chronicle has obtained since the pro tem bonuses were revealed Feb. 15."These initials are definitely not his," said [Alice] Lee, who ran the pro tem office, which handles some administrative duties for council members and their staffs, until fall 2004.
Quan was mayor pro tem — one year spending $50,000 less than his budget — until the end of 2003. He remained in his council office until the end of last year.
At the end of his council term, Quan said, he told pro tem employees he wanted to use surplus money from his council budget to pay for the cost of printing a final newsletter. After he had the work done, he said, pro tem employees rejected an invoice in January, saying it was too late for the transaction. So, Quan said he had to pay for the cost from his campaign funds.
But the pro tem office got credited as though it had paid for the $2,500 charge, according to budget documents previously obtained by the Chronicle. That and the disputed initials raise questions about where the money actually went, he said.
First, it looks like Quan did nothing wrong. He wasn't in the Pro Tem's office when this happened. As for Carol Alvarado, the good news is that this demonstrates that this stuff really did take place without her knowledge or participation. That's also the bad news, since one has to ask again why she was unaware of it, since it was her own staff that was responsible.
Next questions: Is there more of this? How far back does it go? My uninformed guess for the first question is Yes, and I have no idea about the latter.
On another note, you may recall Orlando Sanchez's globetrotting ways while in City Council. According to Houstonist, the DA's office will be looking at that, too.
When prosecutors went to the mayor pro tem's office Tuesday and confiscated truckloads of records, they were specifically looking into rumors about councilmembers' travel expenses."Charging things through the mayor pro tem's office, as opposed to their own budgets," confirmed Chuck Rosenthal, Harris County District Attorney.
11 News has obtained documentation of some of the travel that, we're told, piqued the DA's interest -- in particular, the travels of former councilmember Orlando Sanchez.
Sanchez flew extensively to U.S. cities like Washington, New York and San Francisco, as well as Latin and South American sites including Cozumel, Caracas and Rio de Janeiro and European cities as far flung as London, Budapest and Ploesti, Romania.
"There is quite a bit of travel associated with being an at-large member who chairs an international trade initiative and an international trade committee and sometimes would be requested by the mayor to represent him abroad," explained Sanchez.
He says routing travel expense reports through the mayor pro tem's office was standard, legal procedure. Sanchez points out that if he wanted to hide something, he would not have filled out public documents asking for reimbursement.
"All reimbursement requests for travel were done by forms that were filled out, signed by the councilmembers and then submitted to the pro tem's office" said Sanchez.
True enough. Maybe this is related to the "rumors" that DA Rosenthal has said he's heard and the tip from a "person he trusts" he said he got. Who knows?
You heard it first yesterday, and now it's official: The long-awaited, much-dreaded special session on school finance begins April 17.
"This special session provides legislators of both parties a rare opportunity to significantly reduce property taxes, make substantial reforms to the franchise tax so it is fairer and broader, and ensure our schools have a reliable and constitutional stream of revenue," Perry said.This will be the Legislature's fifth attempt to fix the public school finance system since 2004. Lawmakers failed to overhaul the system in the regular session of 2005 and in three special sessions in 2004 and 2005.
The big difference this time is they are faced with a June 1 deadline to repair a school system financed with local property taxes. The Texas Supreme Court has ruled the system amounts to a statewide property tax prohibited by the state constitution.
To meet the court mandate, the Legislature essentially will have two options. Lawmakers can pass a massive state tax increase, or they can spend the state's $3 billion-plus surplus to buy down property taxes and shove the problem off to a future Legislature.
I'm curious about that. Did the Court's ruling, in which the June 1 deadline was set, allow for such procrastination? Remember, both the plaintiffs and the state's Solicitor General have read the opinion to mean that more money is needed for schools, and that merely lowering the $1.50 cap is not a sufficient remedy to the finding that the current system is an unconstitutional statewide property tax. Unless someone with insider knowledge tells me otherwise, I am not convinced that throwing surplus money at this in April so as to defer the real work until 2007 will be considered acceptable by the Court.
Former State Supreme Court Justic Steven Smith, trying to win back a seat on the bench but losing a close primary contest to inexperienced Perry appointee Don Willet, has formally requested detailed election data pertaining to the vote count problems in Tarrant County on Primary Day (see here for more).
Smith’s campaign filed a request under the state’s public information law with the Tarrant County elections office, seeking to review data including the audit trail, optical scan ballots and precinct-by-precinct results.“Serious mistakes were made in the counting of ballots in Tarrant County,” Smith said in a news release Thursday. “We want one fair, accurate and complete count.”
Smith lost to incumbent Justice Don Willett by about 5,000 votes, according to results posted on the Texas secretary of state’s Web site. Some results may still be in flux as counties statewide canvass their results.
The request comes more than a week after a computer programming error counted some votes cast in the March 7 primary multiple times and boosted the final tally in both party primaries by as much as 100,000 votes.
Hart InterCivic, the company that made the equipment and wrote the software, took responsibility for the error last week. Hart officials said they will work with local officials to minimize future problems. Company President Britt Kauffman said in a statement that a procedural error led to inflated counts when merging totals from early voting, absentee-by-mail voting and election-day voting into one report on election night.
[...]
Smith spokesman David Rogers said the former justice isn’t likely to request a recount because it would have to be statewide and would include all paper ballots, an effort he said could cost as much as $300,000.
No formal recount requests have been filed in Tarrant County. The deadline for such requests is Monday, after both parties have canvassed the election results, officials have said.
“Unfortunately, the true result in Tarrant County may never be known,” Rogers said. “To date, there has not been a correct count of Tarrant County ballots.
“There has been an incorrect count and there has been an attempt to correct the errors in that count.”
I don't know what joy Smith will get from this request. If he decides to pursue the matter in court, it could get interesting. I've got his press release beneath the fold, which will provide some more grist for the mills of the electronic voting machine skeptics.
Former Texas Supreme Court Justice Steve Smith announced today that he has taken the next step towards filing an election contest or request for recount in his race for Texas Supreme Court, Place 2. "Serious Mistakes were made in the counting of ballots in Tarrant County. We want one fair, accurate and complete count," Smith said. "To that end, we have filed a Public Information Act request with the Tarrant County Elections Administrator seeking to review public documents relating to the Republican Party primary election in Tarrant County," added David Rogers, Smith's campaign manager.
"Unfortunately, the true result in Tarrant County may never be known," said David Rogers, Campaign Manager for former Justice Smith. Though there were 211 election day voting locations for the 635 precincts, audit tapes reporting the election results in each machine were run in only 103 locations. One hundred and eight (51%) of the voting locations did not have properly run audit tapes.
Initial results in Tarrant County included 27,895 phantom votes. The final statewide margin between Smith and Willett was 5,441 votes. The first "corrected" result reported by Tarrant County was a margin of 7,922 (62%-38%). That margin is larger in terms of raw votes than the margin in Harris County, Dallas County or Bexar County, all of which have substantially larger populations than Tarrant County. The "corrected" results switched the first and second place results in Tarrant County's 342th District Court.
Those numbers for Tarrant County are suspect in part because Tarrant County voted for Smith in the 2004 primary by 11,423 to 10,331 (53%-47%), and Smith only lost Tarrant County in the 2002 by 17,411 to 15, 215 (47%-53%). In 2002 and 2004, the statewide margins were substantially higher (7% and 6%, respectively) than the statewide margin in 2006 (less than 1%). The combined statewide margin between Smith and his primary opponents over three elections is less than 1/40th of one percent (417 votes). (Smith: 841,586; Rodriguez, Green & Willett combined: 842,003.) If Smith's margin in Tarrant County is actually the same as his margin in either 2002 or 2004, he won statewide.
Despite the fact that Tarrant County Interim Elections Administrator Gayle Hamilton has expressed a desire to count the Tarrant County ballots correctly, attorneys for the Tarrant County District Attorney's office and the Secretary of State's office have told Hamilton she may not count the ballots without a court order, an election contest or request for a recount.
"To date, there has not been a correct count of Tarrant County ballots," said Rogers. "There has been an incorrect count and there has been an attempt to correct the errors in that count. What we want - and what we understand the County Elections Administrator and the County Republican Chair want - is a single correct count of the ballots in Tarrant County. We know for certain that mistakes were made, and the acknowledged mistakes changed the Tarrant County result by a number of votes more than double the remaining statewide margin. Former Justice Smith thinks that a single accurate count is a reasonable request."
The Texas Election Code requires that a recount for a statewide office would require that all paper ballots statewide be recounted in addition to the ballots in Tarrant County, and that the expense would be borne by the party requesting the recount.
Additionally, in far west Texas, Winkler County, which went for Smith by margins of 260-92 (74%) and 468-249 (65%) in the 2002 and 2004 elections, went against Smith by an unbelievable 0-273 (100%) margin. Governor Perry received only 83% of the vote in Winkler County, and no other contested candidate topped 80%. The propositions on the ballot topped out at 93%.
Winkler county used machines from Election Systems and Software (ES&S), a company that was severely criticized by county officials in Webb county for programming errors and delays during the primary election, according to reports from the Laredo Morning Times of March 14, 2006. ES&S machines operate in 144 of Texas's 254 counties.
Beyond that, Duval County, made infamous by Lyndon Johnson's 1948 theft of the U.S. Senate election in that county, has reported an astonishing 55% turnout, with allegations of vote farming and vote fraud, as reported in the March 16, 2006 Corpus Christi Caller-Times.
Additionally, Jefferson County vote totals were changed by more than 1,500 for each candidate in a race for Jefferson County Judge when a recount was held on Monday, according to reports from the March 14, 2006 edition of the Beaumont Enterprise. Jefferson County had double-counted some ballots, including 644 Republican ballots. (The Jefferson County margin between Smith and Willett is 325 votes.) Some precincts had reported more votes than voters. Tarrant County double, triple, quadruple, quintuple and sextuple-counted some votes. The Enterprise reported that ES&S would cover the cost for the recount in Jefferson County, estimated at $8,000.
According to a March 16, 2006 report in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Tarrant County will charge any candidate who wants a recount. No mention was made of any offer by Hart InterCivic, whose machines were used in Tarrant County, to pick up the cost of a correct count.
Smith won 152 of 254 counties. No Republican primary was held in 18 counties, and the candidates tied in 2 counties. Willett won 82 counties (33%).
Steve Smith is best known as a conservative former Justice of the Texas Supreme Court who was elected in 2002 despite opposition from insurance industry interests. In private practice, Smith was best known as the attorney who filed, litigated and won the Hopwood case that ended racial preferences at Texas universities from 1996 through 2003. Smith served as a Justice on the Texas Supreme Court from Nov. 20 of 2002 until Dec. 31, 2004, and was one of only two Republican justices who did not accept contributions from insurance industry front group Texans for Lawsuit Reform.
Inspired by this Kos post on the effect of early money in some netroots-supported races of late, a Kos diarist named New Sweden wrote this piece about Shane Sklar in CD14. The comment thread is also worthwhile - see here for some election analysis of the district (to which I'll add that the other statewides - Carillo, Keasler, and Brister - got 60, 62, and 64%, respectively, in 2004) and here for an elaboration on where Sklar stands on the issues. Like all candidates, Sklar is hoping to make his quarterly numbers look good, so if you like what you see, give him a hand.
David Harris had a pretty good day yesterday, between making a guest post on Wampum and picking up an endorsement from the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America Political Action Committee (IAVA PAC), one of seven Democratic candidates to be so honored. Anna has the full list of endorsees. Here's a clip from the press release:
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America Political Action Committee (IAVA PAC) is today announcing seven endorsements for the 2006 Congressional election cycle - all of whom served in the current wars, and promise to bring the credibility needed in Washington to challenge the course the Bush Administration has put America on in Iraq.
"These candidates are truly the 'A-Team,'" said Iraq War Veteran and Executive Director of IAVA PAC Jon Soltz. "Every single one of them are in a position to win their races if given the proper support, which we promise to deliver to them. They have the personal experience in the current warzones to understand what our Troops need, and they will fight for our Troops and Veterans in Washington, unlike their opponents."
"The candidates we are endorsing are patriots," said retired General Wesley Clark, who serves on the Board of Advisors of the PAC. "The voters in their districts can cast votes for them with pride, knowing that they will serve their communities in Washington as honorably as they served their nation in war."
"Not too long ago, I was in the same place these candidates are in," said Paul Hackett, who also serves on the Board of Advisors of IAVA PAC. "I know what they need to win their races, and IAVA PAC is the only organization out there which will get that help to these candidates. Washington needs Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans in positions of power, as does our nation."
As with Sklar, you can help Harris meet his quarterly numbers, too.
I was pretty sure this was going to happen, but it's nice to see anyway, especially this far out from the start of early voting: Al Bennett, former challenger in the Democratic primary in HD146, has endorsed Borris Miles in the runoff against incumbent Rep. Al Edwards. Here's the press release:
Houston, TX – In a statement released today by his campaign, former District 146 candidate Al Bennett has endorsed Borris L. Miles, and urged his voters and all the voters of District 146 to support Miles in the upcoming runoff election, Tuesday, April 11. Bennett, a local attorney, ran a strong third in the March 7th Democratic primary, earning 19% of the vote, while Miles ran second with 33%.Citing the need for a new voice and new priorities, Al Bennett said, "Borris Miles is the only candidate who can provide needed change. While the Democratic voters of District 146 did not nominate me for the House of Representative, a majority said they wanted a change, and I echo that call."
In endorsing Borris Miles, Bennett continued, "Al Edwards had been a missing voice with misguided priorities…this is our opportunity to make a change."
Borris L. Miles, a successful small business owner, former law enforcement officer and longtime community activist will face incumbent District 146 State Representative Al Edwards in the April 11 runoff election following a very heated primary election.
"I am honored to earn the support of Al Bennett.", Miles said. "Al ran a strong race on the issues, and has a bright future in public service. I am pleased to have his endorsement."
Running on a campaign of change, Miles, a Sunnyside native and lifelong District 146 resident, is running to fully fund public education, restore and expand access to children's health insurance, combat flooding and crime, and expand economic opportunity. "For too long, the residents of District 146 have gone without a real voice in Austin", Miles said. "It's time they had the representation they deserve – someone who will fight for their interests at the Capitol. I will be that representative."
Borris Miles enjoys the endorsement and support of a variety of community leaders including Mrs. Audrey Lawson, Houston City Councilmembers Ada Edwards, Ronald Green and Peter Brown, Harris County Constable May Walker, HISD Trustees Larry Marshall, Dianne Johnson and Kevin Hoffman, Bishop Gene Moore, Ministers Manson Johnson, Terrence Johnson, Ed Lockett, Fort Bend Constable Ruben Davis, Houston Urban League CEO Sylvia Brooks, Candidate for Texas Governor Chris Bell, Former State Representative Debra Danburg, Ambassador Arthur Schechter, Mark Lee, Herman Litt, The Jewish Herald Voice, Former Houston Police Chief C.O. Bradford and many others.
Early voting for the runoff election begins April 3rd and continues through April 7th. Election Day is scheduled for Tuesday, April 11, 2006.
Thank you, Al Bennett. This race will be another factor in determining how stable or not Tom Craddick's speakership is. A win for Miles is a loss for Craddick, and that's good for all of us.
Nice to see everyone getting along so well in CD22.
The three Republicans who unsuccessfully challenged Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) in a recent primary either are saying they will not endorse him in the general election or are waiting to make up their minds.Some political observers believe the lack of unity among Texas Republicans could hamper DeLay’s effort to retain his seat and question DeLay’s decision to lambaste his primary opponents soon after beating them earlier this month.
[...]
Michael Fjetland, one of the Republicans to challenge DeLay in the March 7 primary, said flatly: "I cannot endorse any felon." DeLay is not a felon, but he has been indicted by Democratic Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle and had extensive ties to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
Fjetland, an attorney, added that he was "bothered" by DeLay’s remarks after his primary win. "None of us attacked him individually, only on the issues affecting people in the district," he said.
Shortly after winning, DeLay issued a statement in which he accused his Republican challengers of taking their cue from Democrats.
"So what did the Republican primary last night show?" the statement said. "The candidates running against Tom DeLay all mimicked Democrat attacks and Democrat talking points. The voters of this district soundly rejected their campaigns, and sent a message that Tom DeLay’s dedication and faithful service to the issues and values of this district are what matters most."
Tom Campbell, the environmental attorney who came in second in the primary, said that DeLay has a "problem with his base" and that he has yet to decide whether he will endorse DeLay.
"I think Mr. DeLay is engaging in a counterproductive but characteristic pattern of conduct. He’s attacking the messenger. … Ten thousand Republicans, many of which were conservative Republicans, voted against the incumbent, and they voted for another conservative as an alternative. Mr. DeLay should think about that, rather than simply attacking me as being a liberal Democrat, which simply the facts don’t support."
Campbell added: "I am not part of any vast left-wing conspiracy."
Pat Baig, who finished fourth in the GOP primary, stated, "I believe Tom DeLay embodies the malignancy that is destroying the integrity, credibility and historical cornerstones of the Republican Party. That is why I ran against him. I cannot vote for corruption; therefore, as in ’04, he will not have my vote in ’06."
So how big a deal is this? In the previous GOP primary for CD22, Fjetland got about 5600 votes out of 28,000, or 20%. Some 12,502 people voted against DeLay this time around, out of 33,160 total votes cast. What Baig and Fjetland do won't make any difference - anyone who voted for them has likely never supported DeLay in the past - but not having Campbell's support could hurt. Campbell got almost 10,000 votes, which is more than Fjetland got in 2000 when the turnout was 50% higher. I think he's right to say that this represents an erosion of DeLay's base, which I will point out is a continuation of a trend from 2002 and 2004.
Chris LaCivita, a former head of the Virginia Republican Party who is now a political consultant, dismissed talk of DeLay’s base being fractured, calling the primary a case of "sour grapes.""These guys just ran in a very contested primary and had their heads handed to them," LaCivita said, noting that DeLay captured 62 percent of the vote in a four-way race. "Where I'm from, that-s called a good, old-fashioned ass whoopin'."
LaCivita added that Republican voters ultimately would vote for the candidate who represents their values. He added that DeLay shouldn't have too much trouble sewing up an additional 18 percent of the GOP vote, giving him an 80 percent advantage among Republicans and a strong core of support heading into November.
I have news for you, Mister Where-You're-From-Is-Not-Here LaCivita: In 2004, an average of 165,739 votes were cast for Republicans in the four statewide races in CD22. DeLay got slightly over 90% of that average Republican vote in CD22. He got almost 85% of the Presidential vote, which is where he lagged the most behind. Had he gotten only 80% Republican support, he'd have finished with 132,591votes instead of the 150,386 he actually got. Put another way, he'd have gotten 48.6% of the overall vote had he gotten a mere 80% support from Republicans. If he gets only 80% Republican support this time around, we'll have a new name for him: Private Citizen Tom DeLay. Now does that 62% he got in the primary get your attention?
Link via The Stakeholder.
You knew this was going to happen, right?
A number of the state's major law firms are trying to scuttle a tax overhaul because they want property tax relief without paying their share of public school costs, former Comptroller John Sharp said Wednesday."They want everybody else to pay for it. That's where the lines are going to be drawn," Sharp said.
Glen A. Rosenbaum, a Vinson & Elkins partner and spokesman for a coalition of 18 major law firms, said lawyers support the tax reform effort but believe a new business tax proposed by Sharp would prove "excessive and inequitable" for professional service firms.
[...]
Rosenbaum said the only option available to law firms and other professional service providers is the compensation deduction, and he called the $300,000 cap a major sticking point. He said law firms in his coalition are ready to pay their share of taxes and for several years have supported "any number of tax alternatives" that included professional firms, including some options rejected by the Legislature last year.
Rosenbaum said Sharp's proposal would be more acceptable if the compensation cap were raised to $500,000 or $550,000 per employee. He said lawyers wanted to continue to work with the commission to find an alternative.
"What these guys really want is to distribute all their money to their partners and come back with nothing to pay taxes on," Sharp said.
"There is no way we or the Legislature can justify letting lawyers pay themselves $500,000 before paying any taxes, while they get the same property tax relief everyone else gets," he added.
As I said before, the only way this works is if everyone agrees that the system really does need to spread the burden around, and that that includes spreading some of it to themselves. Rick Perry has been saying the right things lately about the need for a broader business tax, but his record is not one that inspires trust in his willingness to fight back against the business lobby and its inevitable demand for execptions to be carved out for this group or that. I'll believe he's capable of doing that when I see it.
By the way, the article mentions April 17 as the target start date for the next special session. That's one month from tomorrow, six days after the primary runoffs, and 44 days before the court-imposed June 1 deadline. Such fun it will be.
You may recall the adventures of Roger Owen, now the Democratic nominee for CD01 in East Texas, during the primaries - see here and here for a refresher. Now that he is the nominee, a few of us bloggers thought we should express our concerns about his actions during the primary to him. Vince Leibowitz has written an open letter to Roger Owen (PDF), for which I'm a cosigner. Check it out.
(It turns out there are other reasons to have concerns about Roger Owen as well. Too bad that didn't come out during the primary, that's all I can say.)
You needed an excuse to visit Drexler's BBQ, right? Well, here you go:
Meet and hear David Van Os at his Houston "Whistlestop".Enjoy Texas BBQ and listen to music by David Rovics ("The Musical Version of Democracy Now" according to Amy Goodman) and "Brother Can You Spare A Dime" (a musical political comedy).
Richard Morrison is the Master of Ceremonies.
Drexler's BBQ, 2300 Pierce St., Houston
March 25, 2006 :: 5 PM - 8 PM
For more info, contact Tom Gederberg at 281-451-4669 or e-mail gederberg at sbcglobal dot net
Be sure to get the brisket while you're there, too.
And the march to municipal WiFi takes another step forward in Austin.
The city is partnering with Cisco Systems Inc., the largest maker of computer networking equipment, and the World Congress of Information Technology on the project. Cisco will donate nearly $700,000 worth of wireless-networking equipment for the new network to the group hosting WCIT, an international gathering of technology leaders in Austin in early May.But the network will live on. With Cisco's equipment and engineering assistance, the city's communications and technology management department and Austin Energy will build and maintain the network, which will deliver high-speed Internet access to attendees at the technology convention and, ultimately, to various city workers, the general public and to academic and private researchers.
Mayor Will Wynn said the network helps Austin in several ways, expanding broadband Internet access to more residents, helping city services do their jobs better and serving as a potential test laboratory for new wireless applications, services and companies.
Glyn Meek, CEO of the WCIT Austin organization, said discussions about building the network have been under way for nearly a year.
"We always have wanted to leave behind a legacy to the city," Meek said of WCIT, which is held in a different city every two years. "This was in the back of our mind as an appropriate thing to do. This will be of lasting benefit to the city."
The wireless network will be built in three stages. The first stage, covering lower downtown will be completed by mid- to late April in time for the technology meeting. It's designed to provide almost continuous broadband Internet access to attendees at the convention whether they are in seminars at the Austin Convention Center, at their downtown hotels or in the Warehouse and Sixth Street entertainment districts downtown. The East Austin and Zilker Park stages will be completed during the summer.
"Our delegates live and die and breathe by (Internet) connectivity, and this provides them with continuous connectivity for all their stay," Meek said. "Cisco has absolutely stepped up to the plate for this and so has the city. This has been a great team effort."
[...]
[Austin Chief Information Officer Peter] Collins said his existing staff can maintain the network without additional spending. Cisco, he said, has agreed to help maintain the network for its first few years of operation.
Alex Cavalli, director of Austin's Digital Convergence Initiative, says he expects the network to become a valuable resource for the public, for the city and for researchers and entrepreneurs.
"There is a whole array of uses from practical city services to research and new business development," Cavalli said.
Let's see...you've got your public/private partnership, your investment in municipal infrastructure, your upgrade of your city's appeal for visitors and potential new residents, including other businesses...yep, I think we've hit all the high points here. This project differs from the one in Houston in that it's a temporary setup for a convention that will be made permanent, and will be actually free to use for those in its area instead of low-cost. I think the very nature of this kind of thing means that you'll see a variety of ways in which it's brought about. By working with the WCIT, Austin was able to capitalize on a unique situation and take full advantage of it. Kudos to them for it.
I hope that by the time either the Lege or the Congress gets around to contemplating another anti-municipal WiFi bill like we did here last year, that enough cities will have at least a solid implementation plan already in place, so that the outcry will be as loud and broad-based as possible. I figure the more this is a fait accompli, the less there is that can reasonably be done to stop it.
Sherron Watkins, best known for her whistleblowing memo just before Enron imploded, testified today in the trial of Kenny Boy Lay and Jeff Skilling.
A very talkative Watkins took the jurors step by step through her discovery of what she considered to be fraud at Enron, her meeting with Lay and her subsequent feeling she became a pariah at the company where she felt her job was in peril.Watkins told jurors how she trusted Lay before she went to him with her memo in August 2001. But she said he later lied to analysts in a conference call in October 2001 about the Raptors hedging structures established through Fastow's LJM side company.
"It was a blatant lie . . . to say these could have been done with anyone else," Watkins said of the many overvalued Enron assets hedged in Fastow's financial vehicles. "You don't make statements like that, they're misleading."
She said Lay also misled employees that same day.
[...]
In June 2001, Watkins went to work for then-Chief Financial Officer Andrew Fastow and was assigned to examine assets the company might sell. What she found, she said, was that Fastow's LJM had already gotten its money back with profit, leaving the failing Raptors owing Enron $500 million it didn't have to pay out.
"Accounting just doesn't get that creative," she said.
Her concern was mounting, she said, when in mid-August Jeff Skilling resigned as the company's CEO.
"It told me he was a smart man ... this stuff I stumbled across, he knows it. He knows it's bad and he's getting out," Watkins said.
Testifying in the conspiracy and fraud trial of Skilling and Lay, Watkins' testimony reflected most directly on Lay.
On questioning by prosecutor John Hueston, she said she trusted Lay and thought he didn't know about the Raptors, so she decided to warn him. She wrote her famous memo Aug. 15, 2001, leaving it anonymous at first, then met with Lay Aug. 22.
Her memo stated: "It sure looks to the layman on the street that we are hiding losses in a related company."
[...]
She had about 30 minutes with Lay in which the vice president asked the then-CEO and chairman of the company to "come clean" about Fastow's side deals for the company's sake.
"I did most of the talking, He seemed kind of surprised these things could be problems," she said.
Watkins said Lay winced when he read that an employee said: "'I wish we would get caught, we are such a crooked company.'"
She said she thought Lay took her seriously. He asked if she'd told anyone outside the company about her concerns and she said no.
Watkins said she asked Lay to investigate without using Houston law firm Vinson & Elkins and Enron auditors Arthur Andersen, because those professionals had already signed off on questionable deals. But Lay did use Vinson & Elkins for the investigation.
Here's an earlier AP wire report. That story gave me the impression that while Watkins' testimony established that Lay knew, at least at some point in time, that things were not right at Enron, it also allowed for the possibility that it was the first Lay had heard of any of it, and that it was well after the real lawbreaking (done by Andy Fastow) had already occurred.
Lay's lawyer Chip Lewis focused on Watkins' sales of Enron stock during this tumultuous period. She sold around $47,000 worth of stock and acknowledged she had insider information that public did not know.Watkins said she wishes she had not sold the stock but did not admit she had committed insider trading.
"You didn't commit any crimes at Enron, did you?" Lewis asked.
"I'm not an expert at that," she replied.
Lewis asked her why prosecutors never charged her with insider trading.
"Maybe because I wasn't the leader of the company," Watkins said. "I wasn't making statements to the public ... contrary to my knowledge."
Lewis also asked whether she knew that when Lay sold millions of dollars worth of stock back to the company in the fall of 2001, whether she knew it wasn't "voluntary" and he had to to make margin calls.
"(If) you've got Aspen homes to sell, you've got other ways to raise cash," she said in response to the idea Lay was forced to sell his stock back to Enron.
Loren Steffy thinks the defense scored a "haymaker" on that part of the cross. I don't recall that bit of information from previous accounts; if it came as a surprise to the jury, it may well have had a big effect. At least she's not testifying under some kind of duress from the federal Task Force, which ought to make Tom happy. On a side note, Tom asks a good question: Will the Feds call Rick Causey to bolster Andy Fastow's testimony, or will they hope it stands on its own? I have to agree that the latter seems like a risky choice. The Legal Commentary blog thinks some corroboration of Fastow is needed, but not a "mountain" of it.
The TrialWatch blog has quite a bit on Watkins' testimony - start here and work your way back. There will now be a four day break, thanks to a combination of some scheduling problems for witnesses and the desire by the judge to give the jurors a little R&R.
UPDATE: Tom was not impressed with Sherron Watkins.
The Texas Tax Reform Commission has held its last public meeting, and their current proposal for how to abide by the Supreme Court ruling on Robin Hood does not include increasing the sales tax as a component.
[TTRC Chairman John] Sharp said that his committee will spend two weeks finishing its proposal but has a preliminary consensus that it will include:•Reduction in local school property taxes of about one-third, which would lower the current rate of $1.50 per $100 valuation in most school districts to $1 per $100. Total tax relief would be nearly $5.9 billion.
•A revised business franchise tax on the gross receipts of most businesses – excluding sole proprietorships and companies earning less than $300,000 annually – after either employee compensation or the cost of goods are deducted, depending on the type of business. Companies and partnerships that deduct employee compensation would pay a 1 percent tax, while mass retailers, wholesalers and others that deduct the cost of goods would pay a half-percent tax. The new business tax would produce an additional $4 billion a year.
•A $1-a-pack increase in the state cigarette tax, raising the total tax to $1.41 per pack. The new levy would generate an additional $800 million a year.
•Use of $1 billion of the state's $4.3 billion surplus to help offset the reduction in school property taxes. Only about $2.2 billion of that amount was not previously committed by the Legislature, but Mr. Sharp said his advisers believe the surplus will grow an additional $2 billion to $2.5 billion in the current biennium – leaving sufficient funds for other programs such as education reform.
The tax revisions and surplus would produce about $5.8 billion to pay for the property tax cut.
I'm a little skeptical of any plan that involves the use of a surplus, because we're only three years removed from having a $10 billion deficit. Where's that billion going to come from in the next biennium? If we were talking about spending it on mostly one-time items, that would be different, but one presumes this property tax cut is intended to go forward. Obviously, we don't have the TTRC's report yet, but color me wary at the outset.
Another ponderable is whatever happened to the idea of extending the sales tax to services? When that idea first surfaced in 2003, statistics about how the goods-based sector of the economy was shrinking while the services-based sector was growing. Surely that hasn't changed since then. Is that still up for consideration?
Finally, Sharp takes aim at the snake currently lurking in the weeds:
Meanwhile, as the special session approaches, a group of House Republicans has been trying to drum up support for a temporary fix that would use more than half the budget surplus to reduce property taxes by about 20 cents per $100 of assessed valuation. Supporters say that would allow lawmakers to avoid a big tax bill in the special session and finish the job in the 2007 regular session.Mr. Sharp, a Democrat, said that would be a big mistake and could leave the state with a deficit – especially if lawmakers can't agree on a new tax system in 2007.
"That's how you wind up getting yourself in big financial trouble," he said.
Again, any solution based on using surplus funds is questionable at best, and let's face it - the best (possibly only) reason for "finishing the job" in 2007 is that it occurs after the 2006 election. It's also not at all clear to me that such a procrastinatory fix would satisfy the court's mandate. All in all, this is an idea that should not be taken seriously.
You may recall that Primary Day results in Webb County were delayed due to voting machine problems. Yesterday, the Laredo County Commissioner's Court held a hearing on this, and it got a bit heated.
When Chris Moody, the Texas director for Election Systems and Software, came to the podium to offer an explanation, he simply stated that they had not expected to use flash cards to record the votes. The plan was to use the personal electronic ballots (PEBs) that they trained county officials to use.A flash card is installed in each electronic machine, and records the votes cast. A PEB is a device that is used to read all the machines from a particular precinct. Due to a programming error, the PEBs could not be used and tabulators had to read each individual flash card, significantly delaying the vote tally.
After Moody's brief explanation Monday, dead silence ensued. Then Carlos Villarreal, county executive administrator, stormed to the podium and angrily told the court, "I think you need more explanation."
[Commissioner Jerry] Garza responded that he remembered officials with the company coming to Webb County every two weeks to lobby the county to buy their equipment.
"Then we cut you an $800,000 check, and that's it," Garza said. "That's not acceptable.
"It's absurd. You promised us the world, and we got nothing."
Oscar Villarreal, elections administrator, later said county officials were trained how to use the machine three weeks ago, and were not trained to use flash cards because they were only to be used in emergencies.
There was a representative on site Election Day from Election Systems and Software, but Moody said that employee was not trained to use flash cards, either.
When asked what the company would do about the runoff, Moody said he, personally, would be in Laredo to assist with any technical problems.
Part of the reason for the heat was that a couple of the members of the Court had just gotten unelected on Tuesday, so some feelings were still a little raw. If it makes anyone feel better, the legally mandated random audit they did of one race, the Supreme Court Place 2 election, gave the same result as Election Day.
Now any time one blogs about electronic voting machine problems, one will get an earful of suspicion and doubt about them with varying ranges of intensity. My biggest concern is what I perceive to be a lack of redundancy in the system. It's nice to know that if the PEBs fail you could still count the votes from the individual flash cards, but what happens if a flash card fails? I support equipping all electronic voting machines with printers like the ones on ATMs so that each voter also creates a paper record of his or her vote. Whether that serves as a backup/sanity check for the system or they're counted as the "real" votes doesn't matter to me so much as the idea that there's a separate system in place to ensure integrity in the event of a problem with the machinery. Admittedly, this would not have sped things up in Laredo, but at least it would have put to rest any questions about the actual vote totals.
It should be noted, as this earlier story points out, that paper ballots are not immune to problems, either.
The final vote for 49th District Court judge was not released until Wednesday night because of a problem in Zapata County.Doroteo Garza, Zapata County Democratic Party chairman, said that while the county's delay was the result of new equipment, it was not the fault of the new electronic voting machines.
It was actually a machine used to scan paper ballots at each of the polling sites that caused the delay. Although machines were used at each of the sites, it was only the one at Precinct 4 that gave officials problems, Garza said.
In Zapata County, when the voter uses a paper ballot it is put into a machine that scans it and puts it in a sealed box. But the machine in Precinct 4 began to act up when a voter's ballot was dropped into the box. The machine began to kick the ballot submitted previously out of the box in order to add the new one.
Garza said those ballots that were spit back out were taken and put in another slot for "spoiled ballots."
Because of the defect, the ballots had to be manually counted, but the numbers didn't add up and Zapata officials had to call technicians in from Heart Graphics, which provided the machines.
"We brought in the experts because they wanted to make sure everyone got a fair deal," Garza said. "That's why it took so long."
Speaking as an IT professional, redundancy is your friend. Equipment sometimes fails. That's just the way it is. You have to be prepared to overcome it when it does happen. Really, I think the biggest problem here was that there was no one from the vendor onsite during the primary, when all this new machinery was being used for the first time. It's nice that they'll be there for the runoffs, but they blew it by not being there last Tuesday. That should have been a requirement in their contract.
Finally, while the focus was on Laredo because of the CD28 primary, Webb County was not the only place to encounter glitches.
The error caused Tarrant County to report as many as 100,000 votes in both primaries that never were cast, dropping the local turnout from a possible record high of about 158,103 voters to about 58,000.Because the errors added votes equally for each candidate, the glitch did not change the outcome of Tarrant County races but narrowed the margin of victory in some statewide races. In the close Republican primary race for Texas Supreme Court, for example, incumbent Don Willett edged past former Justice Steve Smith by only about 1 percentage point with the corrected vote tallies.
The math geek in me feels compelled to point out that if the same number of votes went to each candidate, the margin of victory would have remained the same if by "margin of victory" you mean "vote differential". If instead you mean "percentage differential", it would have actually increased once the repeat votes were removed. This is an application of what an economics prof of mine called "the Pete Rose Theorem". It works like this: If Pete Rose enters a game batting .300 and he goes one for four, his batting average at the end of the day will decrease; this is because "one for four", or .250, represents a smaller ratio of hits to not-hits being added to his existing total, which in turn reduces his overall ratio, which is expressed here as his batting average. Had he gone one for three (.333), his average would have gone up. In this case, since Willet's percentage before the repeat votes were added was above 50%, adding the same number of votes to his total and to Smith's (i.e., 50% to each) would have lowered Willet's ratio of votes to not-votes, while raising Smith's and thus do the same to each person's percentage of the vote.
To make up an absurdly simple example, imagine Willet beating Smith two to one. That means 67% for Willet and 33% for Smith. Now add one vote to each person, so that it's 3 to 2 in favor of Willet. Willet's percentage then declines from 67 to 60, while Smith's climbs from 33 to 40. Do it again so that it's 4-3 for Willet, and the percentages become 57-43. Play around with it yourself and you'll see what I mean. Bottom line, Willet's percentage of the vote was higher, and Smith's was lower, after the extra votes were removed, not the other way around.
Anyway. Thanks to commenter Chito for pointing me to the original Laredo Morning Times link.
I was forwarded an email about a fundraiser for Missouri Senate candidate Claire McCaskill earlier today. I could whine about Texas being everybody's donor state, but this happens all the time around the country. Besides, McCaskill is a strong candidate with a real shot at knocking off the incumbent Republican Jim Talent; Rasmussen has her leading by three points, with the rolling three month average tied at 43-43. This is a seat the Dems need if they want to take back the Senate, or at least narrow the gap. So I'm not bothered by that.
What does bug me is seeing the names Ben and Melanie Barnes at the top of the host list. If you search for the Barneses on the TEC contributions page, you'll see that they've given a lot of money to fellow Democrats over the past several years. They've also contributed over $70,000 to one Carole Keeton Strayhorn since December of 2002, with the most recent donation being $10K on December 28, 2005. Which makes me ask why, in a year where the incumbent Republican Governor is polling at 40% and less everywhere you look, are they not supporting Chris Bell?
Now maybe they just don't like Bell. If so, that's their choice. What I suspect, though, given that Barnes had been rumored to be playing footsie with Kay Bailey Hutchison a year ago, is that he's bought into the idea that only another Republican can take down Rick Perry. You can slice the math however you want, but we all know that Strayhorn can't beat Perry without significant Democratic support - I've lost the link, but I believe Royal Masset calculated it at 30%. But with Perry polling within hailing frequency of Gene Kelly/Marty Akins numbers, why would the Democrats want to go anywhere else? When do we think we'll next get a shot at the Governor's mansion against someone who polls like Perry? Do you think Governor Combs or Governor Dewhurst will have such anemic re-elect figures in 2014? Cause I sure don't.
You don't have to tell me that the Democrats are in a down cycle in Texas. What I'm telling you is that the surest way to exacerbate that cycle is to abandon the most winnable race we've seen since 1998 because you've swallowed the idea that there's no point in trying to win it with your own team. You want to see obituaries for the state Democratic Party? Watch what gets written on November 8 if Bell finishes third or (God forbid) fourth.
It's not just about this year, either. What happens in November will determine to a large extent whether or not Democrats run a real, properly-funded challenge against John Cornyn in 2008. Cornyn's approval rate is nothing to write home about, and he's generated a fair amount of campaign material in his first term for whoever does challenge him. If Bell wins or even comes close, I'd expect to see potential opponents for Cornyn lining up quickly. If not, well, we can always hope for KBH to retire in 2012, right?
It's a simple choice, really. Stand and fight, or run and hide. I don't know why Ben Barnes has chosen the former everywhere else but Texas. It's just a shame that he has.
UPDATE: You can add Tony Sanchez to the list of runners and hiders. All I can say is "ugh".
Hmmm...my invitation must have gotten lost in the mail.
Russell "Rusty" Yates Jr. will remarry this weekend, two days before his ex-wife, Andrea Yates, is scheduled to be retried in the 2001 murders of the couple's children.On Saturday, Yates will marry Laura Arnold, a woman he met while attending Clear Lake Church of Christ, according to the Rev. Fairy Caroland, Yates' aunt.
"He's happy and the family's happy," Caroland said, who added that the wedding date was set long before state District Judge Belinda Hill scheduled Andrea Yates' retrial.
Arnold has two sons, ages 21 and 9.
[...]
Yates declined to discuss the wedding.
"It's not something I want to talk about," he said. "Just trying to keep my private life, private."
I got nothin'.
More documents have been taken by investigators from the District Attorney's office looking into the improper bonuses paid to staffers in the Mayor Pro Tem's office.
Earlier Tuesday, a source told 11 News five or six investigators took about five filing cabinets' worth of documents from the office.The district attorney said that other city officials, dating back years, may have misused city money.
They took out about eight boxes in all, but wouldn't say much about them.
"We did kind of see some interesting things on first blush," said DA Chuck Rosenthal.
Rosenthal said the document seizure was related to the well-publicized bonuses four now-fired employees of former mayor pro tem Carol Alvarado. They lost their jobs for giving themselves bonuses.
Rosenthal also said the probe gave his office a chance to look at something else, allegations going back several years that city officials were improperly using the mayor pro tem's budget.
"Charging things through the mayor pro tem's office as opposed to their own budgets," Rosenthal said.
Rosenthal said the seizures were the result of a phone call he received from someone he trusts.
"It was his contention that there may be documents in the file cabinet at the mayor pro tem's office that might disappear," said Rosenthal.
He said the probe could go from any official on down.
The statute of limitations allows him to only investigate city officials who served during the Lee Brown and Bill White administrations.
blogHOUSTON links to and quotes from this KTRK story, but the quote they excerpted is not in that story. A search of the site suggests it was edited out. Weird.
Former Mayor Pro Tem Gordon Quan, whose tenure is covered in this expanded investigation, has this to say about it.
"Anything like that would have been highly suspect," said Quan Tuesday. "I would have questioned who is this person turning in this request."Four months after he left office, the one time mayor pro tem has been contacted by the Office of Inspector General about the goings-on while he was in office.
"As far as special expenses to an office that favors that over another office, we really didn't see that," said Quan.
Quan, who took over the office in 2002, says he finds it hard to believe any city official, elected or not, would be able to siphon money through the pro tem's office. He says while he was pro tem, every expense that went through that office was double checked.
"We would immediately call the councilmembers and ask 'We just want to verify. Did you authorize that? And if you did, we nee your signature on this'."
Quan admits some expenses from council offices were reimbursed by the pro tem's office. They were items like coffee and supplies. Nothing, he says, that would merit improper expenses. Nonetheless, he welcomes the investigation.
"I feel like since the pro tem's office name and council has been tainted, that it's better to have a cleaning of the house and a clean bill of health for everyone," added Quan.
Well, we'll find out, I guess. As I blog this, the Chron story is pretty lean on details. I'll check tomorrow morning to see if there's a revised version up.
Finally, it was in the other stories, but here's Carol Alvarado's statement on today's development:
"I am encouraged at this sign that the District Attorney¹s office is moving forward. I strongly believe that investigators should have access to all the information they need to get their work done and complete this investigation."
Stay tuned.
UPDATE: Here's today's Chron story, which has some new information to go along with the revelation that Chuck Rosenthal is looking into the past as well.
A memo dated last April from a city employee who has been fired for receiving unauthorized bonuses asked then-Mayor Pro Tem Carol Alvarado to approve $5,500 in extra pay.A spokesman said Tuesday that Alvarado doesn't remember such a memo. She has said she didn't approve any of the monthly bonuses that totaled $143,000 over about a year for four employees in the Office of Mayor Pro Tem.
"She has no memory of seeing such a memo. There is no copy of such a memo in her files or any of her staff files," said Joe Householder of Public Strategies Inc., Alvarado's recently hired spokesman. "There's no knowledge that this memo was ever sent or received."
The memo, a copy of which was obtained by the Chronicle, came to light Tuesday, the same day prosecutors investigating the City Hall payroll-padding allegations took documents from the pro tem office.
In the memo, pro tem office manager Rosita Hernandez, who received more than $50,000 in bonuses that city officials say were improper, asks Alvarado to approve payments to her and three other fired employees.
[...]
If Hernandez did send the memo, it could support — at least in this instance — her contention that bonuses were properly documented, though the four employees eventually collected far more than the amount requested in the memo.
Conversely, it could fit with the conclusion of police investigators that pro tem employees enriched themselves through misconduct that included fabricating documents.
[...]
The memo from Hernandez to Alvarado asks for $5,500 in incentive pay to be split in different amounts among Hernandez and her three employees: Florence Watkins, Christopher Mays and Theresa Orta.
[...]
The memo is dated April 14, two weeks after Hernandez and the employees shared $9,000 in bonuses, according to city payroll records obtained by the Chronicle earlier. They didn't receive more payments until May 27, when they split another $12,000, the records show.
Householder said Alvarado's assertion that she didn't see the memo is supported by the fact that the bonuses the employees received came at different times and in different amounts than were in the memo.
Hernandez, for example, asks in the memo for a $1,700 payment. But the next bonus she received wasn't until weeks later — and it was $5,000.
"If you look at the city's records, these particular bonus amounts are not reflected," he said. "In fact, this is a far smaller amount than the $143,000 that was stolen from the taxpayers, something that resulted in the proper terminations of the four people."
I don't know what to make of that right now. Whether it was a real documentation trail or not you'd think there'd be more than one such memo. Maybe there's still more to be found.
Charles Soechting, chairman of the Texas Democratic Party, has resigned his position as of April 22. Andrew D has the letter and some thoughts as a former employee of Soechting's. I too thought Soechting did a good job as Chair, and I wish him well in whatever comes next.
At this time, I don't have a strong opinion as to who should succeed Soechting. There's a lot of grassroots support already for Glen Maxey. I want to know more about both him and the other announced contender, Boyd Richie, before I make up my mind. Not that it matters that much, since the SDEC will make the pick, though there will also be a vote at the state convention in June. For now, all I want is a good, clean, open debate on the two contenders and their merits. Yeah, I know, but I can always hope.
Score one for Team DeLay.
A state appeals court Monday gave U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay a legal and public relations victory by throwing out more than 30 subpoenas issued by Travis County prosecutors investigating the Sugar Land Republican's political finance activities.The Third Court of Appeals said the subpoenas issued by District Attorney Ronnie Earle after a senior district judge stayed proceedings in the criminal case against DeLay in December are "null and void."
Most of the subpoenas concerned political fundraising controversies involving DeLay, some dating back to 1996.
DeLay's legal team has been insisting that Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle was issuing the subpoenas only to create bad publicity for the former U.S. House majority leader. They had asked the appeals court to quash the subpoenas.
[...]
Assistant Travis County District Attorney Bryan Case said the subpoenas were intended to do nothing more than get ready for a speedy trial once appeals are done on a pretrial ruling.
"We've issued these subpoenas in order to be ready for trial in a timely manner," Case said. "We have great respect for the court's ruling and we will, of course, abide by it."
Earle has been issuing the subpoenas ever since Senior District Judge Pat Priest dismissed all or part of three indictments against DeLay. Earle appealed Priest's December ruling, and the judge stayed the case pending a ruling by the Third Court of Appeals.
[...]
The panel, which is scheduled to hear Earle's appeal on March 22, said Earle may not issue any more subpoenas while the stay is in effect; ruled all the ones issued after the stay are "null and void;" and any subpoenas issued before the stay are suspended while the appeal is pending.
If I read that correctly (and remember, I Am Not A Lawyer), I think that means that Earle can pick up where he left off once the Third Court of Appeals rules on Judge Priest's dismissal of the conspiracy charges against DeLay. I certainly hope Earle considers the information that he's seeking here to be merely supportive of his case against DeLay and not critical to it. If he didn't have enough evidence to have a chance of convicting him when he secured the indictments, no subpoenas are likely to save his butt now.
With all the fronts in the DeLay Scandal-Go-Round, any good news he gets is almost always accompanied by some not so good news elsewhere, for DeLay and/or one of his good buddies (links via The Stakeholder. Who knows what tomorrow will bring? You may note, by the way, that the Daily DeLay blog has a new home, so update those bookmarks and RSS feeds.
There was one more interesting quote from that Express News story I excerpted in the previous post, which I'm putting here because it didn't fit that one:
Leininger may not go away, but [Rep. Joe] Straus said maybe such huge contributions should. Leininger spent about $2.5 million attempting to defeat five Republicans who voted against school vouchers last year.Straus last year received backing from Leininger, but he said this year's record spending, though perfectly legal, helped drive unseemly campaigns. He called Leininger "this year's poster child for grotesque funding of politics."
"Ronald Reagan would be spinning in his grave," Straus said. "It was a divisive and bitter negative campaign season where Republicans were piling on each other with campaigns of distortion and offensive attacks. It seems the more negative, the nastier, the less credible the attack, the better it worked."
You can't do much about the tone of a campaign, but you can do something about how much any single entity can spend on one. Straus was one of many coauthors of campaign finance reform bill HB1348 last year, which got killed on the floor when sponsor Craig Eiland tried an end run to get it out of committee, where Mary Denny was steadfastly blocking its path. I don't recall if HB1348 had a donation cap provision (the text is a little too dense for memory-jogging purposes), but that's certainly an agenda item among the reformers, so who knows? Now that some Republican incumbents have gotten a taste of what this is like, they may decide it's in their best interests to push for limits on how much a single entity can give to a campaign. If so, the irony would be delicious.
Time once again to look at reasons why the upcoming special session on school finance is going to be a barnburner. The Express News hits most of the high notes here.
"Collegiality is strained," said veteran Rep. Pat Haggerty, R-El Paso, who narrowly survived a GOP challenge himself.Some House members may want to kill each other, he said, although the more likely outcome will be members killing each other's bills.
"There's a lot of discontent," said Rep. Joe Straus, R-San Antonio, who had no primary foe but was with Leininger-targeted Rep. Carter Casteel of New Braunfels on election night.
[...]
The infighting made it harder for Republicans to work together because "once you start a trend like that, there may be payback," said Republican consultant Royal Masset.
"I don't see how anything changed except they're all madder at each other than they were before. If anything, it's more difficult," he said.
Masset figures lawmakers will do the bare minimum to satisfy the court ruling on school finance.
Harvey Kronberg, editor of the nonpartisan online political newsletter Quorum Report, said the main lesson of the primary is this: "When in doubt, vote your district. On the House side, all those freshmen and sophomores increasingly understand there may be a price to pay to giving the speaker a vote simply to move the process."
El Paso Republican Haggerty agreed, saying members now realize they "will have to pay for hard votes."
The House is an "immensely fractured" body, Kronberg said.
"The speaker's power until now was his ability to rein in and direct the (Republican) caucus. ... The speaker's inability to (stop members from endorsing GOP colleagues' challengers) and his unwillingness to put any of his own money into defending incumbents did not go unnoticed.
"Old-timers know one of the speaker's primary jobs is to protect the institution and to protect the members," Kronberg said.
I don't think it's so much a question any more of if Craddick could be dethroned as Speaker. At this point in time, it's at least theoretically possible, which is something you could not have said in 2005. The stumbling block is going to be convincing an alternative Republican to put his or her neck on the block and announce a challenge to Craddick. As long as it's a close call, I think no one will want to take that risk. If Al Edwards loses his April runoff to Borris Miles and if the Dems do pick up a few more seats in November, then the likelihood increases dramatically. (West Texas rep and Craddick acolyte Scott Campbell is also in a runoff, and he's less likely to survive than Edwards is.) And of course, whatever armbreaking Craddick has to do in the special session to get a bill passed may come back to bite him later, too.
Link via Matt. For more tea-leaf-reading on the primary results, see Chris Bell's optimistic take and Greg's somewhat gloomier outlook.
Finally, in fairness, I should note that House Democrats, or at least the El Paso contingent, have their own share of kissing and making up to do, too. Hey, misery loves company, right? Link via South Texas Chisme.
Fighting Jay Lee (none more surly than he) makes a great suggestion:
I was having a brief conversation this weekend with respected man about town, Bill Shirley, and the conversation turned as it will to politics and podcasting. While we both agree that it *might* be a good thing to have Kinky on the ballot we seem to be in agreement that having Kinky in office is another thing entirely.No one I have talked to can really say why they’re for Kinky…what he stands for or what we can expect from him as governor. In some regards I think people just enjoy saying the word “Kinky” out loud or revelling in the perceived effect of the word prominently displayed on the bumper of their pick-em-up truck.
I mentioned that a good podcast subject might be to conduct interviews with random Kinky supporters (who seem to be in force on any given night at the Continental Club) to find out what they *really* know about the campaign of Mr. Friedman. It was agreed that it might be quite amusing to hear the results.
If anyone picks up that ball and runs with it, please let me know. I'd love to hear the results as well.
Christus-Saint Joseph's Hospital has found a buyer.
Christus Health Gulf Coast and Health Care Partners of America signed the agreement Thursday, nine months after the 119-year-old Catholic hospital was put up for sale because Christus didn't have the money to modernize its aging buildings. It pledged to find a buyer that would continue its historic mission as a comprehensive hospital that provides charity care."The offer we received from HPA meets all the criteria we established for our bidders when we started this process last summer," said Pat Carrier, president of Christus. "They recognize and value the spirit and legacy of St. Joseph. This continuation of mission was a critical element in our selection of HPA as the winning bidder."
Carrier said the deal should close on or before June 30. The final price has not been determined, and neither party would disclose the general range.
HPA, a for-profit, privately held company established in Charlotte in 2003, operates general acute-care hospitals in partnership with their physicians. Though it impressed health care experts by turning around Houston's struggling Twelve Oaks Medical Center three years after buying it, HPA is not a major name in the industry.
When Christus announced St. Joseph would be put up for sale last June, industry analysts were skeptical. Questioning the validity of a downtown hospital faced with growing competition from the Texas Medical Center and a rising indigent population, some suggested converting it to a specialty care hospital instead. They emphasized that the lack of demand for a large acute-care hospital downtown was the reason it was put up for sale.
But HPA officials said the plan is not only to maintain the hospital's current operations, but to expand them. Noting downtown's residential population is projected to increase 300 percent in the next four years, they said they will invest in capital improvements to enhance the nearly 1.2 million-square-foot facility.
"We think this is a very intriguing business opportunity," said Terry Linn, HPA's chief development officer. "The Texas Medical Center is formidable competition, but it has issues — access, parking, turnover — that make it open to competition from a downtown hospital. And not many downtown hospitals have the facilities, services and accommodations that St. Joseph does."
I'm glad to hear this. The situation sounded awfully bleak when St. Joe's was put up for sale. I confess I'm a little uncertain how this will work out financially for HPA, and I'm a little surprised that Rob Mosbacher's consortium idea went exactly nowhere (this editorial published three days after the original story is the last I heard of it). Be that as it may, I'm glad that the hospital where Olivia was born once again has a future.
I found this article from Sunday on so-called PunkyMoms to be reasonably interesting, not so much because I know a few women who'd fit right in with them, but because of this little snippet:
Punkymoms encourage each other to be good moms yet maintain their individuality."We try to recognize that we had a life before kids," [Becca] Rawson says.
It reminded me of something I drafted a few months ago but never got around to blogging about. Matt Yglesias flagged this article in The Atlantic about how marriage is being increasingly defined as a for-the-kids kind of activity. A sample:
At vacation time my husband and I don't drag our little boys through the Louvre, as I was dragged at a tender age (because my parents wanted to see it, and it would never have occurred to them to consult their children about where to go on holiday). Rather, we check into hotels with elaborate children's pools and nightly fireworks and huge duck ponds.
I never got taken to the Louvre by my parents because any exotic travel during my childhood was done by them sans rugrats (having two grandmothers within walking distance of our house who were willing to babysit undoubtedly helped with that). When we travelled as a family, we mostly went to the Jersey shore, like everyone else on Staten Island and thereabouts. It never occurred to me that there was anything unusual about them taking their own vacations, and even if we hadn't had free accomodations down in Mays Landing, I'm sure it never would have occurred to them to seek out a hotel like the one described above. Well, maybe one with a pool, but then my dad liked to swim anyway, and mom was always happy enough reading a book in the sun.
So far, Olivia has travelled with us to visit family and on a business trip of Tiffany's. We've talked about taking her to Italy - a friend of ours is the son of a former diplomat who speaks the language and who has invited us to co-rent a cottage with his wife and kids. The only reason we wouldn't take Olivia to the Louvre is that Tiffany prefers the Musee d'Orsay. I'm not a hotel-with-fireworks kind of guy, and neither is Tiffany.
I knew going into parenthood that I'd have less time for myself, but I did not and do not believe that this means that everything we do from this point forward would be about our children. Maybe it's easy for me to say that now, before Olivia becomes involved in all of the usual things that kids get involved in, and maybe it's easy for me to say that now while we still only have one child. If I believe that it's good and healthy for all of us if Tiffany and I not only maintain some of our individuality but also maintain the expectation that there will be times that Olivia will go along with what we want to do and may even enjoy it, then maybe it will continue to be easy for me to say those things later as well.
On the one hand, I do expect we'll strive to make it to every T-ball game and recital/play/whatever Olivia is in. My folks were good about that, and I think that's important to kids that their parents see those things. And there's certainly much to be said for kid-friendliness in hotel accomodations and travel activities. On the other hand, I aim to take Olivia to Rice sporting events so she can see me play with the MOB, and I plan to teach her to play bridge so she can someday partner me in an ACBL event. She's already accompanied me to a political event or two. And yes, some day I'll help her start her own blog. I want her to know that her Dad was somebody before he was her dad, and that while he may have had to scale back on some of those things once she made the scene, he still is that person inside. Some of my best memories from my youth are about watching my dad play softball with his all-lawyer team The Barristers. I hope Olivia will be able to say something like that someday about an activity of mine that I took her to.
As Paul Simon put it, somewhat starkly:
That was your mother
And that was your father
Before you was born, kid
When life was greatYou are the burden
On my generation
I sure do love you
But let's get that straight
I think Olivia deserves the best of me as her father, and I don't see how I can be that if I have to chop off or subsume parts of who I am to be her father. To tie things back to the original article, I think that recognizing one's pre-kid life can still exist in some modified form is a good and healthy thing, and makes for a parent that'll be more of a person some day to his or her children. Okay, maybe not while they're teenagers, but a boy can hope, can't he? And at least this way I'll have something to do while she mocks my squareness. I call that a win-win.
First reported by QR, it's now in the papers: State Rep. Carter Casteel has officially requested a recount in her close loss to Leininger-bot Nathan Macias.
While she doubts the recount will find her the winner, Casteel said she decided to ask for one after hearing from many supporters, constituents and state leaders.She said she believes the recount will prove the election was conducted in "a very proper way."
"I think because everybody is in such an uproar, I think it's fair to everybody that we just do it and put that to rest," she said.
Here's her full statement:
"I am going to request a recount and I have retained Buck Wood as the attorney to represent me in that effort. I have thought about it a long time. I have come to grips with Election Day. However, my supporters and many of my constituents in House District 73 have encouraged me to ask for a recount. Forty-four, 45 votes is a pretty good stretch, but stranger things have happened."
According to Matt:
She will have two days from when the Republican Party of Texas canvasses its primary results to petition for a recount. According to the party’s Web site, canvassing will happen March 22. After receiving the petition, the party will have two days to decide on whether to grant the recount.
It's a longshot, but any time you have a race this close, you pretty much have to doublecheck the result. You just never know.
Vince spoke to Rep. Casteel and got some more information from her about this. Casteel also mentioned support Macias had from anti-toll road forces as a factor in her loss, something which the Statesman more or less dismissed last week.
Finally, if Macias does hold on to the win, he'll have some fences to mend back home.
I'm feeling a little apolitical today, so let's talk about food for a minute.
I'm one of those people who simply will not eat certain foods. The reason for that is simple: I can't stand the way they taste. Sometimes this is a texture thing - for example, I have no objections to celery per se, but I don't usually care for detectably large pieces of it in most cooked foods. Most of the time, it's taste.
I was a very picky eater as a kid, but as I grew up, I eventually tried a lot of the foods I would not have eaten, and found that I did in fact like quite a few of them. Maybe it was a maturing of my taste buds, maybe it was discovering a similar food that I liked first and then branching out, or maybe I was just a weenie as a kid, I couldn't say. For some of these foods, it's understandable why I'd always refused them before; for example, the first time I ate beans was while staying with a college friend in Midland. My first day there, her mom served barbecue. I didn't want to be rude, so I tried the borracho beans, and loved them. Since my main exposure before then had been baked beans from school cafeterias, I think I could be excused for my prior distaste. You wouldn't have liked the hot lunch beans, either.
Not all such experiences ended with me adding a new item to my personal menu. Some years back, a friend who was staying with my then-roommate Matt and me insisted on making dinner for us, which was eggplant parmesan. I tried it, even wound up eating a full serving, but didn't much care for it, and have never eaten it since then. Tiffany (who eats just about everything and sometimes gets exasperated with my fickleness) has made me sample asparagus and artichoke, without success. I had a stronger sense of dislike for them than I did for the eggplant, but if I'd been in a position where I had no choice but to consume a portion of them - say, dinner at a consulate - I could have made myself do it.
And then there's the stuff I really hate. Broccoli is at the top of this list - given a choice between broccoli and starvation, I'd have to think about it really hard. (Go ahead, make the Poppy Bush jokes. I've heard them all.) The last time I accidentally ingested a piece of broccoli was in college, when I swallowed what I thought was some celery in a bowl of chicken soup from the dining hall, and nearly gagged. The smell of broccoli is enough to get me to run screaming from the room. If I live to be 100, I will never voluntarily eat broccoli.
As I said, Tiffany is sometimes unsympathetic on such matters, as are some other friends and family who don't have anything on their personal food-hate lists (Matt, I'm looking at you). It's my belief that while most people can learn to like most foods, some of us are just hardwired against certain items. The sense of taste has a genetic component to it, so my response is that I did not get the broccoli-acceptance gene. That's my story, anyway, and I'm sticking to it.
So. What foods will you not eat under any circumstance? How much guff do you get for it? Leave a comment and let me know.
I'm feeling a little better today about the runoff in the Senate primary than I did on Thursday. Runoffs generally come down to who can turn out their supporters better, and on that score only Barbara Radnofsky will even be trying to do that, so that ought to give her the leg up. And it's not like Darrell Reece Hunter is going to throw his support behind Gene Kelly (and who'd notice if he did?), either. So hopefully this will mean a little more news for the campaign before all the coverage goes into summer hibernation.
Of course, as this Express News piece notes, Kelly did win a Senate runoff in 2000, against the better qualified Charles Gandy. For what it's worth, I couldn't have told you that prior to reading that article if my life had been on the line. Gandy may have run a campaign, but it was invisible to me. I believe - I sure as hell hope - Radnofsky will have sufficient visibility this time around.
As I said before, I'm going to pester you mercilessly remind you regularly between now and April 11 of the importance of casting a ballot for BAR in the runoff. I've got an email to the Radnofsky campaign to get a statement from BAR, which I plan to run around the time early voting starts. (I also hope to get some statements from candidates in other runoffs - if anyone associated with Ben Grant is reading this, please drop me an email.) In the meantime, Radnofsky has a guest post at Capitol Annex for your perusal. The runoff is four weeks from tomorrow. Don't let it sneak up on you.
Tory has a piece by Otis White on property taxes and appraisal caps that's quite interesting and not something I'd heard of before. Check it out.
I don't say this very often, but I agree with George Will in his assessment of Barry Bonds.
It is still unclear if there will be judicially imposed punishment in this matter. But condign punishment for a man as proud as Bonds would be administered by the court of public opinion, and exclusion from the Hall of Fame.In any case, Bonds' records must remain part of baseball's history. His hits happened. Erase them and there will be discrepancies in baseball's bookkeeping about the records of the pitchers who gave them up. George Orwell said that in totalitarian societies, yesterday's weather could be changed by decree. Baseball, indeed America, is not like that.
Besides, the people who care about the record book — serious fans — will know how to read it. That may be Bonds' biggest worry.
Well, okay, I mostly agree. As Will noted earlier in the piece, Bonds was an easy Hall of Famer based on his career through 1999, before he started juicing. As far as I'm concerned, what he's done since then should not negate what he did before than. He'd still get my vote for the Hall if I had one. To anyone who'd indignantly shout "But he cheated!", I have to ask: Where was the outrage when spitballer Gaylord Perry was enshrined? Or when Whitey Ford published a confessional about his throwing cutballs and mudballs? Outrage is always selective.
You may also ask "What about Pete Rose?" The difference here is that Rose broke a rule that was already in place and whose consequences - banishment from the game - were known. Someday, someone may get banned from the game for using steroids, and when that happens, that player will be ineligble for the Hall. Until then, it's not a sufficient criterion for barring the door.
This is not to say that an individual voter can't, or shouldn't, use the latest revelations about Bonds as a factor when making his own decision. Barring anything further on the topic, I would not agree with bypassing Bonds based on doping, but I expect a nontrivial number of voters will do just that, perhaps enough to keep him out. That'll be a debate for another day.
Where I will definitely and vociferously draw a line is against the notion that Bonds' numbers should be expunged from the record books. Denying what happened is not baseball's way. Pete Rose is still the all-time hit king, and Barry Bonds is still the single-season standard bearer for home runs, walks, and slugging percentage. History can and will judge the context of those numbers, just as we judge accomplishments in the deadball are and in extreme hitting locations.
Link via Greg, who sees things similarly.
The headline on today's Chron piece - "Beating Perry uphill battle" - elicits a certain "Tell me something I didn't already know" feeling. It's a decent enough overview for those who haven't been paying much attention, but for the rest of us, well, it doesn't really tell us much that we didn't already know. One point I want to make:
But the three-way challenge also is working in Perry's favor because Friedman, Strayhorn and Bell may split the anti-Perry vote. And Perry has consistently led his opponents in public opinion polls.
I don't doubt that the three-way challenge will split the anti-Perry vote to some extent. It seems like an oversight to me to write this, however, without acknowledging that Perry's level of support is pretty damn soft for a Republican in this state - thirty-six percent in last month's DMN poll - and that this is the result of Strayhorn (who would have likely gotten around 30% in a GOP primary against Perry, based on the limited polling we had prior to her jump) and Friedman peeling voters away from him. Even the GOP-friendly Rasmussen poll, which had Perry at a high of 46% pre-Strayhorn, has him at 40% as of February. Perry just isn't that popular, as SurveyUSA has tracked month by month. Note those deep troughs in July and August, during the most recent Special Session Palooza. Look for a similar dip in April and May, even if a school finance bill is ultimately passed.
(If you want to know what a popular governor's numbers looks like, compare Perry's tracking chart to that of Janet Napolitano. Note also that Napolitano is a Democrat in a red state. Just FYI.)
All in all, it's easy to see why the Chris Bell campaign believes it has a straightforward path to winning. If the likes of Bob Scarborough and JR Molina can do better than 40% in a year where George Bush topped the ticket, it's not hard to imagine Bell doing the same in 2006, when that may well be sufficient. The key is holding onto the base, which is going to involve convincing enough people that the math can work. The analysis by Perry pollster Mike Baselice may be self-serving, but he's right about the Dems not having much slack. Strayhorn is certainly going to push the idea that only she can beat Perry, and if enough Dems believe that, it'll be come self-fulfilling. Friedman's cult of personality campaign presents a different issue, one with no easy answer.
We'll know more after the special session. If the Lege beats the June deadline and passes a school finance bill that meets constitutional muster, a huge amount of heat will be taken off Rick Perry. If that happens, I expect to see him start to poll over 50% again, and from there it's likely to be all over. If August rolls around and nobody knows when or if the schools will be open, he's in deep trouble. I have no idea what will happen. None at all.
Finally, on a tangential note, I have to give credit to Kinky Friedman for demonstrating once again that he can get his name in the papers while doing pretty much anything, no matter how trivial. That's a superpower that almost any political candidate would love to have. Link via Michael Croft.
You have mere hours left to make your voices heard in the voting for the 2005 Koufax Awards. I'd like to thank everyone who cast a ballot for me in the Best Local and State Blogs category. I must say, getting a shoutout from Lydia Cornell (see comment here) was an unexpected highlight. Take that, Bluegrass Report!
Anyway, the full list of nomination posts is at Wampum on the left sidebar. As always, if the spirit moves you, please consider making a donation to these fine folks for their efforts on this annual project. Thank you.
UPDATE: Due to technical difficulties, the voting deadline has been extended to midnight tonight.
One more item from the Things That Happened While I Was Out Of Town file: The Chron had a story about the new Schlitterbahn water park in Galveston, which was slated to open yesterday.
Jeff Henry speaks of the $34 million Schlitterbahn Galveston Island Waterpark as if it is his toy — which in one sense it is.''I started out in this business when I was 11," said Henry, Schlitterbahn's director of water park development. ''I'm 51 now. This is like a piece of art to me. I've never had so much fun in my whole life."
Soon, Henry will find out if water-loving visitors from Texas and beyond share his enthusiasm when the state's third Schlitterbahn location opens.
After delays caused by a fire and Hurricane Rita, Henry said he now has a ''target date" of March 11. The landscaping is finished, and the amusements are being tested. But he and others with Schlitterbahn Waterparks say they have yet to set an opening date.
"March 11 is my target — that's all I'm going to say," Henry said Wednesday. "I sure hope to make it. It's progressing very, very well."
The summer-season opening date, April 22, is much more concrete, Henry said. Potential visitors should check the theme park's Web site — www.schlitterbahn.com — for updates.
''There's still work to do," Henry said last week. ''We've been riding the rides the last few days. This is going to be a great park."
As this KHOU story from Friday shows, they were't quite on track to make it, but according to the Schlitterbahn Galveston website, a part of the park is opening today, with the rest of it slated for the April 22 date mentioned above. I can't wait to see what it looks like.
I don't honestly know why I hadn't linked to the Vanity Fair article on Jack Abramoff (PDF) before now. Heck of a picture there on the first page, isn't it? I imagine it may find its way into a campaign mailer or two sometime between now and November 7.
I'm amused that DeLay has jumped on a quote in the piece as proof that he never engaged in actual lawbreaking with Abramoff. Naturally, he didn't bring up the subject of his personal relationship with the man. You may recall that prior to the primary, DeLay said the following in a letter to his constituents:
"The reality is, Jack Abramoff and I were not close personal friends. I met with him only occasionally, in fact less frequently than numerous others who brought issues before Congress."
According to Abramoff, this is what these non-close non-personal non-friends talked about on those oh so rare occasions when they did meet up:
"We would sit and talk about the Bible," he said. "We would sit and talk about opera. We would sit and talk about golf."
By an amazing coincidence, those are exactly the topics of conversation I have with my non-close non-personal non-friends. I wish I could've been a fly on the wall for those talks about the Bible. I'm sure their interpretations of the Commandments against stealing and lying would have been most illuminating.
I just want to add my best wishes for a full and swift recovery to those extended by others to State Sen. Mario Gallegos as he begins treatment for alcoholism. PinkDome has his full statement. Get well soon, Senator Gallegos.
Christof Spieler continues his excellent work on considering the possibilities for the Universities light rail line by proposing a solution to the problem of Afton Oaks. It's an idea that's been tossed around before - basically, using the Union Pacific Railroad right of way near Newcastle to swing the line over from Richmond to Westpark - but the case he makes for it is pretty persuasive. There's also a followup post with some information from a new Metro newsletter. Check it out.
Merit pay for teachers is on its way.
Teachers at 100 Texas schools, nine in the San Antonio area, will earn extra cash this year as part of a merit pay plan created by Gov. Rick Perry last year.Teachers at the chosen schools will get bonuses ranging from $3,000 to $10,000 for what they've achieved in the past.
They'll then design programs to determine how any future bonuses will be distributed. In the next two years, they'll qualify for bonuses again if student scores continue to climb.
[...]
Richard Ingersoll, an education professor at the University of Pennsylvania and an expert on merit pay for teachers, raised questions about the requirement that educators, in effect, design their own bonus plans.
"I'm skeptical because it's not easy to do, and it will be trial and error, and it will be only two years," he said. "On the one hand, it's good to engage those it's going to affect. On the other hand, it's kind of tossing the burden to them to figure out."
Teachers often have been wary of linking test scores to teacher salaries, and merit pay has gone nowhere in the Texas Legislature.
Shelley Potter of the San Antonio Alliance said it is open to a fair plan that doesn't rely on one measurement.
"There's a lot of concern that there's an overemphasis on testing," she said. " If you tie teacher pay to testing, you ratchet up that emphasis even more.
"There's a lot of debate about whether that would be a good thing," Potter said, adding that the Perry plan should give schools more time to design their own plans.
Allen Odden, a University of Wisconsin education professor who has designed performance pay plans, said Kentucky, for example, saw results from merit bonuses for about 10 years.
But Odden questioned whether Perry's plan could ever go statewide.
"States aren't going to have programs that pay $10,000 per teacher. Just do the math - it's going to be a couple billion dollars. They're not going to spend that kind of money," he said.
The teachers are happy for now to get access to whatever extra cash they can get, and who can blame them? I'll be interested to see what kind of system the teachers design for themselves. There are definitely some pitfalls to watch out for, though. This article (PDF) on the potential hazards of using merit pay, written by a business consultant, is aimed at the IT industry - I stumbled across it in Joel Spolsky's Best Software Writing book - but I think the issues it captures carry across to the education industry. I'm willing to see how this goes, but as with most things that emanate from Governor Perry's office, I fear it will be half-baked and driven by political motives rather than a desire for a good policy outcome. But we'll see.
I was alerted to this article by Sherrie Matula, the Democratic candidate for HD129 down in Clear Lake, who also sent me some related materials on the program - see here (PDF), here (PDF), and here (Word doc) for more. One thing to keep in mind is that tying this exclusively to test scores means that some classes of teacher - physical education and fine arts, to name two - can't really participate in it. Perhaps that will be worked out by the teachers themselves, I don't know. I do know that making this exclusive in such a way is bound to cause resentment. Like I said, we'll see.
Here's an update and overview on Houston's project to install a citywide WiFi network.
The updated technology would cost Houstonians half of what they pay today for Internet access, Richard Lewis, the city's director of information technology, told members of a City Council committee Thursday."We're trying to drive down the cost of wireless broadband for Houstonians," Lewis said. That means people who can't afford Internet access now may be able to once the network is in place, he said.
In considering the project, Houston is joining a nationwide race to go wireless. More than 70 cities are planning large networks, including Corpus Christi, Philadelphia and Chicago. Others, such as Spokane, Wash., and Oklahoma City, offer so-called hotspots, small "wired" areas where residents can access the Internet.
Houston's network, which could be installed starting as early as next year, is intended to foster economic development, help the city operate more effectively and give residents and business owners access to new, faster technology.
It's still in the preliminary stages: Companies will likely start bidding on the project in the next few months. And while the final contract needs City Council's approval to proceed, Mayor Bill White has been one of it's strongest supporters.
The wireless fidelity, or WiFi, network would enable police and other public safety employees to log on from the road, retailers and schools to access high-speed Internet without paying for their own infrastructure and Web-surfers at home to upgrade. It would also ensure the city has a way to communicate with others during a disaster.
The service would be free to city government, as well as Houstonians who bring their own laptops to select hotspots, such as large parks.
In homes and businesses, the connection would come with a price, but one that's likely to be more affordable than it is now. The monthly fee could be about $15 compared with the $30-50 residents pay now, Lewis said.
Houstonist noted a story from a few days ago in which the city's new high-tech parking meters could be the first users of the new network.
I think you all know by now that I love this idea and can't wait to see it come to its fruition. Dwight nailed it in his comments when he said that this is "the 21st centry equivalent to paving streets". In a few years we'll look back on this and wonder why anyone objected.
Here's a nice article about Jeannie Schulz, widow of Peanuts creator Charles Schulz, and how she's adapted to her role as caretaker of his legacy. She was the guiding force behind the creation of the Schulz Museum in Santa Rosa, which Tiffany, Olivia, and I had the pleasure of visiting while out in CA last week. Seeing some of those truly classic original strips, some of them for the first time, was awesome. If you dig Peanuts at all, you owe yourself a visit. Next time, when Olivia is older, we'll drop in on the Redwood Empire Ice Arena as well.
Link via Mark Evanier. Like Evanier, I too was charmed by the comic strip tiles in the bathroom, but unlike him I wasn't carrying my camera to document it. Alas. Anyway, check it out.
No, I don't normally catblog - among other things, I don't have a cat. But we spent a couple of days with some friends in Walnut Creek who do have cats, and Olivia was utterly fascinated by them. Click the More link to see a picture.
That's Olivia with our friend Jamila and Sharkey the cat. Olivia was enthralled by Sharkey and his bigger but shyer sibling Fluffy. She spent a lot of time at the back door (both cats are outdoors cats, which was good for me and my allergies) saying "Sharkey! Sharkey!" Happy Friday to you all from Olivia and Sharkey.
So for the next two months it's petition-gathering time for the independent candidate campaigns. Anyone spotted a Friedman or Strayhorn table yet? I'll be curious to see if I run into one. I'll have my voter reg card with its "Democratic" stamp on it to ward them off if I do. In the meantime, however, I was confused when I wrote that you could vote for Radnofsky in the runoff and still sign one of these petitions. The Statesman says:
Strayhorn and Friedman must each gather 45,540 signatures by May 11 to join GOP Gov. Rick Perry, Democrat Chris Bell and Libertarian James Werner on the November ballot. Registered voters can sign as long as they did not vote Tuesday and abstain from voting in either party's April runoff.
And here's § 142.009:
PETITION TO BE CIRCULATED AFTER PRIMARY. A signature on a candidate's petition is invalid if the signer:
(1) signed the petition on or before general primary election day or, if a runoff primary is held for the office sought by the candidate, on or before runoff primary election day; or
(2) voted in the general or runoff primary election of a political party that made a nomination, at either primary, for the office sought by the candidate.
Sorry about that. I know which one I think is more important, but to each their own.
One other point:
"Support a true Texas independent," said Seth Waits, 22, who said he began as a fan of Friedman's music and writing and now is vice president of [Longhorns for Kinky].
I've said this before and I'll say it again: If Friedman were a "true independent", wouldn't he have supported the efforts of Ralph Nader to overturn Texas' restrictive ballot access laws for independent candidates? Friedman was already publicly talking about running for Governor as an independent when Nader filed his ultimately losing lawsuit. An amicus brief probably would not have made any difference, but it would have shown support for the independent cause and been in his best interests besides. Is the boastfully non-voting Friedman, who griped about the Secretary of State's totally routine exhortations to Texans to vote in the primaries, that disconnected from the political process that he was unaware of Nader's suit, or was he just not interested in any "independent" besides himself? Either way, forgive me if I scoff at that characterization.
Apparently, Rep. Ron Paul has decided he no longer needs to try to eliminate the Federal Reserve Board. He'd much rather compel them to keep spending taxpayer money printing a report that no one uses. Kash at Angry Bear has the details.
Do you know what click fraud is? It just cost Google ninety million bucks.
Google has agreed to pay $90 million to settle a lawsuit alleging the online search engine leader overcharged thousands of advertisers who paid for bogus sales referrals generated through a ruse known as "click fraud."The proposed settlement, announced by the company Wednesday, would apply to all advertisers in Google's network during the past four years. Any Web site showing improper charges dating back to 2002 will be eligible for an account credit that could be used toward future ads distributed by Google.
[...]
Mountain View, Calif.-based Google makes virtually all of its money from text-based advertising links that trigger commissions each time they are clicked on. Besides enriching Google, the system has been a boon for advertisers, whose sales have been boosted by an increased traffic from prospective buyers.
But sometimes mischief makers and scam artists repeatedly click on specific advertising links even though they have no intentions of buying anything. The motives for the malicious activity known as click fraud vary widely, but the net effect is the same: advertisers end up paying for fruitless Web traffic.
The lawsuit alleged Google had conspired with its advertising partners to conceal the magnitude of click fraud to avoid making refunds.
The frequency of click fraud hasn't been quantified, causing some stock market analysts to worry Google's profits will falter if it turns out to be a huge problem.
Google executives have repeatedly said the level of click fraud on its ad network is minuscule — a contention that the proposed settlement amount seems to support.
The $90 million translates into less than 1 percent of Google's $11.2 billion in revenue during the past four years.
Google's had a few glitches lately, hasn't it? This article from the Sunday SF Chronicle, which I read while I was out in CA last week, has more on the state of the business in Mountain View. Check it out.
Voting for the Koufax Awards ends Sunday night, March 12th, at 11:59 pm. I presume that's Eastern time, since fine folks at Wampum are all citizens of Atlantic states, so adjust to your location as needed. I and several other Texas blogs are up for the Best Local and State Blogs trophy, and we're still getting smoked by those upstart whippersnappers from Kentucky. Only you can rectify that situation. Thank you.
I think the result that surprised and disappointed me the most from Tuesday was the Senate race, where Barbara Radnofsky failed to win a majority of the vote and was forced into a runoff with perennial non-campaigning candidate Gene Kelly. I said at the time that I suspected Kelly's simpler name helped boost his total. I still believe that's true, but I also think Stace is onto something when he says that BAR was running to win in November, not in March. She's been very thrifty with her limited campaign funds, as befitting someone who'll be grossly outspent in the fall, she's done a lot of travel and met people face to face, and she's clearly impressed a lot of newspaper editorial boards. These are all good things, but they're of limited effectiveness when it comes to name recognition. You can only meet so many people in a year's time. Put out a few mailers, make some robocalls - surely a few of our esteemed officeholders would be willing to lend their voices towards that effort, since surely none of them want to see ol' Gene at the top of the ticket, right? Spend a few of those hard-earned bucks now - it's not like the name recognition you'll get from it will expire before November.
This nifty map shows where BAR did well and where she needs to improve. Again, I agree with Stace: Get down to South Texas, where you did relatively poorly, and campaign. You speak Spanish, so that's a plus. As annoying as it must be to be forced into this position, it may end up benefitting you by keeping your name in the news for another month. There'll be a lot less interest in reporting anything on this race until at least Labor Day after that, so make the most of it while you can.
At least the campaign has recognized that it needs to run against Kelly for the next 30 days. He's as easy a target as you could want. The contrast between the two of you and the reason why you're the only choice couldn't be plainer. Be just negative enough to remind people why they can't afford to go with him, and play up your qualities for all they're worth. The rest will follow.
I'll be reminding everyone here to vote for BAR in this runoff as it approaches. Even if you saved yourself for Kinky or OTG, you can sign their petition and still vote in April, since this isn't the gubernatorial race. As long as you didn't go Republican on Tuesday, you're eligible.
Finally, the Bride of Acheron has a little song about Gene Kelly that I found amusing. Check it out.
Ellen Forman, one of my guest bloggers, has let me know about a conference happening next week at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law. The topic is state accountability in domestic violence; the topic is focused around a 2005 Supreme Court decision in the case of Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales. The Washington Post's synopsis:
The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that federal law provides no guarantee of a specific police response to domestic violence complaints, even when a restraining order has been issued against a potential perpetrator.The case, a victory for cities and states that feared costly lawsuits, stemmed from allegations by a woman in Colorado that police failed to make a serious effort to enforce a restraining order against her estranged husband, who then killed her three daughters before being fatally shot by police.
The woman, Jessica Gonzales, sued the town of Castle Rock, Colo., saying that police there violated the due-process clause of the Constitution's 14th Amendment by putting her off when she repeatedly phoned for help before the killings in June 1999.
Kris Miccio is the DU law professor who has organized this event, and she's looking for a Colorado blogger who might be interested in liveblogging the conference. The admission fee would be comped. If you're interested, please write to Ellen at eforman AT gmail dot com.
Just a few random observations from the Tuesday primaries...
The thing that really strikes me about Tom DeLay's win is that his poorest showing was in his home county of Fort Bend:
County DeLay vote Total vote DeLay Pct
===============================================
Harris 6,532 8,892 73.46
Galveston 798 1,161 68.73
Brazoria 2,341 3,508 66.73
Fort Bend 10,887 19,599 55.55
The turnout disparity between Harris and Fort Bend is presumably due to the numerous contested countywide primaries in FBC, including one for the county GOP chair. You can look at DeLay's win as vindication for him, but I look at that 62% figure and I see weakness. He'll certainly need more than 62% of the Republican vote to win in November, and as long as Steve Stockman is on the ballot, the anti-DeLay Republicans who can't bring themselves to vote for Nick Lampson have a place to go.
I also view DeLay's even weaker performance in FBC as a good sign. As I see it, there's no path to victory for Lampson that doesn't include carrying Fort Bend. DeLay got only 53% of the FBC vote in 2004, so that's very much an attainable goal, especially after nearly half of the GOP primary voters there picked someone else. I thought DeLay needed a big win on Tuesday to help dispel doubts about his electoral viability. This was not a big win.
Moving over to CD28, there's a myth that needs debunking.
There is no way to prove this, but I still bet that if this was a closed primary and Republicans and Independents had been unable to vote, we would have at least forced a run-off, if not won outright. The margin was so close, I can easily imagine a few thousand registered Republicans and Republican-leaning indepdents wanting to vote for Cuellar because of his connections to Bush. The Texas primary system would have allowed them to do so.
As a commenter noted there, you are a Democrat by definition if you vote in the Democratic primary. Bowers is talking about registering with a party as a prerequisite for voting in that party's primary, which is not how it works in Texas.
So yes, it is theoretically possible that people who might normally vote Republican chose to take part in this primary race since it would be their only chance to express a preference. If such people exist, they probably went with Cuellar. Let's stipulate that for the sake of argument and go from there.
The first question is how do you distinguish such voters from the "real" Democrats? Perhaps if they only voted in the CD28 race, since (in theory) that's the only one that interests them. I'd need to see precinct-level data before I could judge if turnout in CD28 was significantly higher than in the other contested primaries. Even if I found such a pattern, it's suggestive but hardly conclusive - I mean, this was the highest-profile race on the ballot. Who's to say that some number of "real" Democrats didn't just care about that race? The best comparison here would be to the HD42 race, featuring incumbent State Rep (and erstwhile CD28 challenger) Richard Raymond, his former staffer former Webb County Judge Mercurio Martinez whom Raymond tried to force off the ballot, and two others. If CD28 drew a lot more votes than HD42 in the same precincts, you might be able to convince me that it was stuffed with ringers. I don't see precinct data on the Webb County Clerk site, and it won't be available through the Secretary of State for some time, so I'll leave that task to someone more motivated than I.
It's my guess that you won't find any evidence of such, at least in Webb County where one expects the crossover motivation would have been highest. For one thing, turnout in 2006 was about what it was in 2002, prior to the redistricting. Indeed, it was a little higher in 2002, when hometown boy Tony Sanchez was on the ballot for Governor. That race drew over 31,000 votes in Webb; the 2006 topper, for Lt Gov, got just over 26,000, while Proposition 1, on raising the minimum wage, got 28,000 votes. The election day results (very slow loading PDF) on the Webb County Clerk site also includes the uncontested CD23, where Rick Bolanos pulled in 11,583 votes; add that to the 14,543 cast in CD28 and you're right at 26,000. Had CD23 also been contested, these two races might have combined for something like 28,000 or even 29,000 votes, so that's a little high, but again - CD28 was a high profile race. So was HD42, which largely overlaps CD28. In my opinion, there's nothing remarkable here.
What about turnout in the Republican primaries? Well, in Webb County, a grand total of 847 votes were cast in the GOP gubernatorial primary. In 2004, there were 846 votes cast in the Presidential primary, and in 2002 there were 604 ballots in the Lite Guv primary, all of which being the high scorers for their cycles. In other words, there is no Republican primary to speak of in Webb, so there's no basis for comparison here. If there are Republicans voting in the Webb County Democratic primary, they've always been there. Having Henry Cuellar on the ballot was only a factor as far as his Laredo roots were concerned. That's why Cuellar won - his home county supported him more than Bexar supported Ciro Rodriguez. I said before that Ciro needed a boost in Bexar turnout to win, and he didn't get it. That was and is the story of this race.
Rep. Carter Casteel is weighing a recount request in her 45-vote loss to Leininger puppet Nathan Macias.
"We'll probably take a look at that very seriously," Casteel said. "I probably owe it to the people who voted for me and contributed to me. I have until March 29 to decide."The final, unofficial tally put Macias ahead with 10,176 votes to Casteel's 10,131 in the four-county district.
Macias said he's "telling everyone I'm victorious and will represent the district with strong, conservative values."
But he later added that with the number of ballots that still could show up and be counted, "I'm not sure anybody can claim victory."
The 45-vote margin could narrow when mail-in absentee ballots sent to out-of-country military personnel are counted. They must be postmarked by election day but can be received until March 20.
Officials are awaiting 93 ballots that were mailed out, but not yet returned, including 79 from Comal County, Casteel's base of support. However, election officials expect relatively few of those ballots to come in.
Four were delivered to the Comal County courthouse Wednesday, said Comal County Elections Administrator Linell Hinojosa.
There also were nine provisional ballots cast, seven from Comal County. Those will be checked by voter registration officials and counted if the voters registered properly.
"When I found out she lost by 44, I thought, 'Hey, this isn't over yet,'" Hinojosa said.
"It's workable, I guess, but my gut tells me not to bank on it," Casteel said of the final results.
Recounts seldom make a difference, but in any race that close I think you have to request one. You never know.
The primary fallout stories are coming: from the Chron, the Morning News, and an editorial from the Statesman, all of which focus on the effect on the upcoming special session on school finance. Oh yeah, this is gonna be fun.
Finally, if you want to read some tea leaves in certain vote totals for a barometer on November, there's good news and bad news for each party. The good news for Democrats is that in the open HD118, formerly held by soon-to-be-State Senator Carlos Uresti, there were only 1924 votes cast in the GOP primary, while the Democrats totalled 5703. The bad news for the Dems is that they had only 3639 votes cast in the HD47 primary, compared to 6090 for the GOP. I wouldn't read too much into this, especially given that HD118 is also within both SD19 and CD28, but consider it noted for future reference anyway.
UPDATE: As noted, Mercurio Martinez is not a former Raymond staffer - that was Sergio Mora. Thanks to Chito in the comments for the correction.
One more item on my catchup list: Mayor Pro Tem Carol Alvarado has stepped down from that post (for now, anyway, or so she says), and the four staffers who got paid the illegal bonuses have been fired.
Mayor Bill White's chief administrative officer, Anthony Hall, said the employees who received more than $143,000 in bonuses had been fired and would be notified by letter of the decision."The letters were signed this morning advising them that they had been indefinitely suspended from employment with the city of Houston,'' Hall said. That suspension is the equivalent of a termination.
Hall, a former city attorney and councilman, presided over termination hearing Tuesday in which the four employees tried to save their jobs.
The employees - Rosita Hernandez, Florence Watkins, Christopher Mays and Theresa Orta - have the right to a public appeal hearing before the civil service commission for municipal employees.
They can appeal, but I doubt that will have any effect unless they can somehow prove their innocence. How they could do that is a mystery to me.
The attorney for Hernandez, Walter Boyd III, said Tuesday evening his client denies any wrongdoing and planned to appeal if terminated."The other side of the story is going to come out," said Boyd. "What you've been hearing up to this point has been merely an elected official posturing to make sure that their underlings, if you will, are the ones who ultimately are held responsible."
I'd put the odds of this being pure bluster in the 90%+ range, but I suppose one never knows. I mean, what are they waiting for, if they've got the goods? Why not wheel it out at this hearing before the firings happened? One way to prove they weren't responsible for what happened would be to prove that someone else was, after all.
The Houston Police Office of Inspector General investigation into the four employees is over and the results were forwarded to the Harris County District Attorney's office for possible criminal charges. But officials continue to investigate other city employees who received bonuses from late 2004 to this year to ensure they were properly approved, Hall said.
If the fired four start talking to Chuck Rosenthal and the word "deal" starts floating around, then I'll believe they've got something. As Kevin notes, the DA's office is involved because the city's Office of Inspector General had limited powers to investigate fully.
So as things stand now, I continue to believe that Carol Alvarado will not face any criminal liability for what happened. That doesn't mean she bears no responsibility for this - far from it. As Vernon commented here, about the best Alvarado can do is play the Ken Lay Idiot Defense card and hope that some day all will be forgiven, or at least forgotten. The question now is whether this will leave a mark on Mayor White. I don't think he'll take much of a hit, but until all the investigations are closed and the inevitable reforms are adopted, he's still in the picture.
What really strikes me as crazy in all this is how anyone thought they could get away with it. Sure, they went undetected for a few months, but this was not a sophisticated plot - hell, the Pro Tem's budget was going to run out well before the fiscal year ended, and then what? Ask for more and hope no one questions it? Pawn office supplies on eBay to cover the shortage? During our companywide ethics training last year, we were regaled by one of our attorneys about some of the things various now-former emplyees did to enrich themselves at the firm's expense. Some of the schemes were pretty darned clever, but from my perspective at least every single one of them was sure to be spotted sooner or later, as they all were. It's one thing to take the money and run, it's another altogether to keep taking it while staying in place. I just wish I knew what the decisionmaking process was for these folks.
UPDATE: The OIG may be finished with the Fired Four, but it still has work to do.
The police probe that led to the firings Wednesday of four mayor pro tem staffers will continue as investigators ensure that other city employees' bonuses were legitimate, officials said.The ongoing Houston Police Office of Inspector General probe was revealed during a news conference in which Anthony Hall, the city's chief administrative officer, announced the termination of four employees who received a total of $143,000 in unauthorized bonuses.
Mayor Bill White and others in his administration said there's no evidence that other employees got large bonuses like those paid to the pro tem employees.
"The mayor said that there would be no cover-up, nobody would be exempt, so any situation where somebody got a bonus, they will be looking at them to make sure that none of these same issues were involved," Hall said.
"There's no indication that there was."
Hall, a former city attorney and councilman, presided over the hearings Tuesday in which the four employees appeared in response to termination notices.
The Inspector General, Assistant Police Chief Michael Dirden, has declined to comment. But the mayor and his staff have said the investigation into the pro tem employees was expedited because they were still drawing pay while under suspension.
Officials have said the investigation also would focus on any complicity by payroll or other employees in the pro tem scheme, which White called a "pattern of misconduct." White said the investigation so far has not uncovered complicity by others.
Stay tuned.
I've been whining about it for awhile now, and it seems I've finally gotten my wish - the Chron now has a Texas politics blog. It's all R.G. Ratcliffe so far, and I'm not sure how interactive he's going to be (responding to comments, linking to stuff outside the Chron, etc), but he's blogging, and I'm happy to cut him some slack until he gets his sea legs, so to speak. Check it out.
More stuff that happened while I was out...Houston 1836 is no more, Houston Dynamo takes its place.
The team officially gave its 1836 name the boot and announced it will build its brand around Dynamo during an unveiling ceremony at the Houston Museum of Natural Science."Dynamo is a word to describe someone who never fatigues, never gives up," team president Oliver Luck said. "The new name is symbolic of Houston as an energetic, hard-working, risk-taking kind of town."
The name is not Dynamos, as in the short-lived professional team that roamed the pitch at Butler Stadium briefly in the mid-80s as part of the now-defunct United Soccer League. It's Dynamo as a reference to an energy source and in tribute to the city's outgoing spirit and ties to energy, Luck said.
The nixing of 1836 was expected after the name was deemed offensive by some in the Hispanic community shortly after its unveiling Jan. 25.
Well, okay. I've said before that I liked Houston 1836 just fine, but I respect the reasons why people objected and certainly understand why the team felt the need to act. Frankly, as long as we didn't get Houston Lone Star or some similarly insipid offering, I was going to accept it. Enough of the name game, it's time to play ball.
Reaction on soccer Web blogs, including the Chronicle's, has been mixed. The new name has been called everything; from "lame", "horrible" and "unoriginal" to a "PC debacle" to "catchy" and "unique."Many bloggers were angry the name was changed to begin with, calling it an "insult to Texas history." Most, though, suggested that the team move on and focus on the game.
John, Lair, and Pete reach for the pop culture references, while Houstonist notes that there's already a Moscow Dynamo and a Kiev Dynamo, and Rob brings the Russian to expand on that. Make of it what you will.
Continuing with the Stuff That Happened While I Was In California theme, the voting for the 2005 Koufax Awards has begun. A full list of nomination threads, now with comments enabled for your ballots, is here. I along with a number of my Texas colleagues am up for the Best State and Local Blog award. Currently, we're getting our butts kicked by blogs from such places as Kansas, Kentucky, and Oregon. Clearly, we cannot let that stand, so if you've got a moment please click here and add a little balance to the proceedings. And if you've got some spare change to go with that spare time, please consider helping the fine folks at Wampum defray their costs for this enterprise.
My stars, are we already at the Andy Fastow testimony part of the Lay/Skilling trial? I knew this was progressing faster than I'd thought, and I admit I've not been paying much attention to it lately (thankfully, Houstonist, Loren Steffy, and Tom Kirkendall have been), but boy did that sneak up on me. Serves me right for going out of town for a week.
I need to do a little catchup reading here, so give me a chance to get back up to snuff and I'll see if there's anything I have to add to all this. You should be sure to read Tom's post about the Lea Fastow plea bargain and how it may muck up the works for the feds, and Loren's post about the overlooked Enron Board of Directors and its role in letting Andy Fastow steal from the company.
By the way, the Andrea Yates retrial may be starting up as the Lay/Skilling trial winds down. If there's any visiting media left in town, they may want to consider extending their hotel reservations.
You may recall the movie "The Big Buy", which I reviewed a few months ago. Here now is your chance to see it for yourself.
As former House Majority Leader DeLay readied himself Tuesday to accept his party's nomination for another congressional term in Washington, D.C., two Texas filmmakers announced plans to release a scathing documentary in DeLay's Sugar Land district, criticizing the popular politician. Tentative plans also call for a screening in Houston, they said.Numerous liberal groups stepped up to sponsor the film's expected release in early May, including Houston's Pacifica radio station, KPFT-FM (90.1). The film will rely heavily upon releases in small venues and at a few select theaters.
Filmmakers Mark Birnbaum and Jim Schermbeck spent three years following the path of Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle's criminal investigation, which resulted in indictments against DeLay and two political associates.
DeLay is charged with conspiring to funnel $190,000 in corporate cash illegally to seven Texas House candidates in the 2002 elections. The film highlights how the Republican-controlled state Legislature redrew the congressional districts at DeLay's request. Birnbaum and Schermbeck said they chose to profile the political heavyweight even before he was indicted. They said they had considered the film complete until DeLay was charged.
Ten minutes were added to the film. Attorneys for DeLay and the two others charged — John Colyandro, director of Texans for a Republican Majority, and Jim Ellis, director of DeLay's Americans for a Republican Majority — appear in the film. DeLay declined to appear.
As Birnbaum and Schermbeck wrote in October, they originally pitched the idea of this documentary to DeLay:
The idea of making a documentary about DeLay and his political action committee — Texans for a Republican Majority, or TRMPAC — originated in early 2003. It seemed like a story that could put the 2002 Texas state elections and the Congressional redistricting battles in context. Since it had an organization created by DeLay at its center, the story also had the potential to affect the second-most powerful Texan in Washington.We first approached DeLay's office about doing a film from his perspective as an elected official under the microscope. His office declined our offer. We then went to the next logical choice: [Travis County DA Ronnie] Earle.
Our goal was to be on the scene if the case ever got past the grand jury, which was anything but certain when we started.
It's kind of a shame that DeLay declined the opportunity to tell his story this way, though totally understandable that he would, given the "anything you say can and will be used against you" nature of criminal justice. I suspect it would have made for some fascinating filmmaking. What we did get is pretty good on its own merits, and I'm very interested in seeing what has been added since I first saw the film. Schedule permitting, I hope to be at the premier in May.
Your moment of Zen for the day, from the original article:
Dick DeGuerin, DeLay's attorney, said the film offers little in the way of balance."I think it's about as fair and balanced as Michael Moore's stuff or Fox News," he said.
Does Roger Ailes know that Tom DeLay's mouthpiece considers Fox News to be, um, not a trustworthy source of information? I'm just asking.
Anyway. As The Daily DeLay notes, you can sign up to host your own screening of the film. Let the theater-versus-DVD debate rage beyond the Oscars, I say! And read more about how this film got to be distributed in this fashion here.
We know where to start with this one: CD22.
Still facing legal battles, U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay won a pivotal political fight Tuesday by defeating three challengers in the Republican primary for his Houston-area seat.Opponent Tom Campbell, former general counsel for the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, fell short of forcing the former House majority leader into a runoff.
DeLay won 62 percent of the vote in the 22nd Congressional District, which covers parts of Harris, Brazoria, Fort Bend and Galveston counties, according to the totals from 97 percent of precincts.
"I have always placed my faith in the voters, and today's vote shows they have placed their full faith in me," DeLay said in a written victory statement. "This race was about who can effectively represent the values and the priorities of the people in this district, and I'm proud to have earned, and overwhelmingly kept, that trust among Republican voters."
"Not only did they reject the politics of personal destruction, but they strongly rejected the candidates who used those Democrat tactics as their platform," he added.
DeLayVsWorld has the full text of DeLay's statement. I have Nick Lampson's which is beneath the fold.
DeLay's totals show that "nearly 40 percent of an ideologically committed (Republican) vote has decided to bail on him," said Southern Methodist University political scientist Cal Jillson. "He still has a hell of a fight in the general election."
Lampson is already courting that 40%, as you can see from his statement below. Chuck Todd thinks DeLay has Carole Strayhorn to thank for the low turnout in that race.
Elsewhere, the next biggest stories are in the State House, where key Tom Craddick lieutenant Kent Grusendorf was ousted by ParentPAC-backed Diane Patrick.
Patrick captured about 57 percent of the vote Tuesday to Grusendorf's 43 percent in complete unofficial returns."We're off to a great start and so are the people of Arlington," Patrick said, surrounded by supporters at J. Gilligan's on Abram Street in central Arlington. Voters were "ready for a change," she said. Grusendorf, 66, has held the District 94 seat since 1987. Patrick, 60, is a former Arlington school board president and a former member of the state Board of Education. She was the first significant challenger Grusendorf had in many years.
Patrick will face Democrat David Pillow in November.
Grusendorf spoke to supporters about 10:30 p.m. at the Hilton hotel on Lamar Boulevard, noting that the tally was incomplete and promising to make a final statement today.
He said strong turnout by voters who don't typically vote in the Republican primary may have helped Patrick and that more competition at the top of the ticket might have helped him.
"We need to get more of the hard-core Republicans out," he said.
Oh, poor baby. If that's true, whose fault is it?
Three other Republican incumbents are out, at least pending any recounts. Both were victims of the Leininger Five - Roy Blake, who lost to former Rep. Wayne Christian, and somewhat shockingly, Carter Casteel, who was ahead by 600 votes with only precincts in her home county of Comal to be counted. There are still mail-in ballots to be counted, and with the margin there at 45 votes, I'm expecting a recount. Regardless, Charlie at PinkDome is pissed about this one.
Also getting the boot is Elvira Reyna, the sole Hispanic Republican in the State House. Her opponent, Thomas Latham, was also ParentPAC-backed. The other three targets of Leininger - Tommy Merritt, Delwin Jones, and Charlie Geren, all survived, as did ParentPAC target David Swinford. One incumbent, Scott Campbell, is in a runoff and I think will likely lose.
Open seat races in HD47, HD118, and HD133 in Harris County are headed to runoffs, as is HD50 for the right to challenge Democrat Mark Strama. Also in Harris County, Patricia Harless held off the wingnut John Devine in HD126, while incumbent Joe Crabb won his challenge. Finally, in a race that had fewer votes than my cousin-in-law Jennifer had attendees at her wedding, former Democrat Dorothy Olmos "won" the right to challenge first-termer Ana Hernandez in HD143.
In the State Senate, the good news is that you won't be hearing Dan Patrick on the air anytime soon. The bad news that's because he crushed his three opponents in the SD7 primary. I doubt it, but perhaps he'll heed the advice of his predecessor when he gets to Austin. State Rep. Glenn Hegar appears headed for a promotion as he won the SD18 primary to replace outgoing Democrat Ken Armbrister.
Finally, in the race for the Least Important Office in Harris County, Treasurer Jack Cato defeated former Mayoral candidate Orlando Sanchez, which makes Stace do the Happy Dance. At this point, I say Sanchez gets tagged with the "perennial candidate" label if he ever bothers to run another race. And to think he was once a rising star.
UPDATE: I'm a little punchy this morning, so please forgive an oversight or two. Former TxDOT Commissioner Robert Nichols appears to be headed to the State Senate after garnering a majority in the SD03 primary to replace Todd Staples. There are still a few precincts out, but it looks good for him. Ron Paul easily won his primary challenge in CD14. And Kent Grusendorf's loss yesterday means he won't have to resign if school finance is still broken after the upcoming special election.
LAMPSON PRIMARY NIGHT REMARKS
Welcome to my Texas uprising!
Tonight is the first big step toward a big change in November. The departure of Mr. DeLay has been delayed long enough.
Tonight, I called Pat Baig, Mike Fjetland, and Tom Campbell to congratulate them on their campaigns. It takes courage to put your name on the ballot against Tom DeLay in a Republican Primary and I wanted them to know they have my respect.
And I want their supporters tonight to know that I am here humbly asking for their votes. I am willing to earn these votes.
These candidates and their supporters recognized a need for change and had the courage to stand up to Tom DeLay. I hope they will join me as we fight our way to November.
Now, let me get to the heart of the matter. Right now in Washington, we're seeing scandal after scandal, the deficit's out of control, jobs are going overseas, and the special interests are running the show.
And you know who's at the center of all of it?
Tom DeLay.
Here's why I'm running for Congress.
First of all, I believe in a balanced budget. I believe you have to make choices and sacrifices. But choosing favors for lobbyists over results for Texas is not the kind of sacrifice I have in mind.
When I was in Congress, I voted to reduce the deficit, lower the national debt, and to set priorities like strengthening Social Security, homeland security, and our public schools.
Meanwhile, Tom DeLay was voting to increase the deficit, raise the debt ceiling, gut education, weaken port security, and privatize Social Security.
We had a clear difference of opinion then . and we still do now.
I believe in national security and homeland security. In particular, I'm not new to this whole issue of protecting our ports from terrorism.
When I was in Congress, I fought to pass legislation that would have increased funding for port security and increased the number of containers that are checked for biological and chemical weapons.
I voted yes. Tom DeLay voted no.
We had a clear difference of opinion then . and we still do now.
I believe in standing up for American jobs. It's time we had a representative who chooses Texas families over multi-national corporations.
We need to stop passing tax breaks for companies shipping jobs overseas. Instead, we should focus tax breaks on working families and small businesses like Cliff's Old Fashion Grill so we can create jobs and improve our economy.
On helping our working families and small businesses, I voted yes. Tom DeLay voted no.
We had a clear difference of opinion then . and we still do now.
And finally, I believe in telling the truth and accepting responsibility. But let's look at just the past few months in Washington .
The Jack Abramoff Lobbyist Scandal. The Hurricane Response Scandal. The Port Deal Scandal. And members of Congress either under indictment or being sent to prison.
It's time to send a message to Washington -- you couldn't clean up your act, so we're gonna to do it for you.
Here's what you will never hear about Nick Lampson when I'm in Congress.
You'll never hear that I sold out my fellow Texans to a Washington lobbyist.
You'll never hear that I used the IRS or the Department of Homeland Security to get revenge on people who disagreed with me.
And you'll never hear that I took money from a charity and used it for politics.
Tom DeLay gets headlines for all the wrong reasons. Well, I'm looking forward to that headline on November 8th . No Further DeLay.
When it comes to standing up for Texas families, I say this . No more delays.
Balancing the budget and returning to fiscal responsibility? No more delays.
Creating American jobs? No more delays.
Securing our ports? No more delays.
Cleaning up Washington? No more delays.
Strengthening Social Security? No more delays.
Fixing the Medicare drug benefit? No more delays.
And finishing the job in Iraq with honor and so we can bring our troops home? No more delays.
I'm honored to be your nominee . and no matter what Tom DeLay says in the weeks and months ahead, just know this .
I've got thick skin and hard hands. I'm as independent as Texas and as strong-willed as the Gulf Coast.
I'll work my hardest and I'll never let you down.
Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the Lone Star State.
Where to start? Let's go with SD19, where Carlos Uresti has ousted Frank Madla.
Uresti led Madla by 5,733 votes late Tuesday night with 92 percent of precincts reporting in Senate District 19, which stretches from South Bexar County to El Paso County. It appeared unlikely that Madla, a lawmaker with 30 years of experience, could close the gap.Just after 11 p.m., Uresti's wife, Yolanda, introduced him as the district's new senator to a boisterous crowd gathered at the VFW post near the Mission San Jose.
After thanking Madla for his years of service in the Texas Legislature, Uresti said: “There were a lot of issues, but it comes down to a few issues — and that's taking care of our children and taking care of our families, our seniors citizens and, of course, our vets.”
That's a big win, and it ought to help solidify the Democratic Senate contingent. I wonder if Pete Gallego is kicking himself for not jumping in this race when he could have. Congratulations to Carlos Uresti!
Over in CD28, it looks like Henry Cuellar will win that free-for-all when all is said and done. Though voting problems in Webb County kept things mysterious though the night, the returns are now almost all in, and Cuellar will win by a decent margin. As was the case in 2004, Bexar County was strong for Ciro Rodriguez, but more people came out in the smaller Webb portion of the district, and that was more than enough to offset it.
The other big race was HD146, where we'll have a runoff between incumbent Al Edwards and challenger Borris Miles. Edwards had a majority in the early vote, but both Miles and Al Bennett gained ground on Election Day, and that was enough to put Edwards under the 50% mark. Would someone please bring Greg Wythe a stiff drink and a cold compress? Thanks.
In the other Harris County State Rep races, both Garnet Coleman and Kevin Bailey won easily, as did Dora Olivo in Fort Bend. One Democratic incumbent, Jesse Jones, was ousted, while Richard Raymond will face Mercurio Martinez in a runoff. And because I know you're dying to know, former male prostitute Tom Malin did not win his primary, thus guaranteeing a less colorful November for us all.
No other challenged State Rep failed to win a majority, though Chente Quintanilla came close. There will be a runoff in HD47 for that open seat, while Eddie Lucio III in HD38 and Joe Farias in HD118 avoided them. In the other State Senate primary, Henry Boehm won a squeaker in SD18.
Finally, in other Congressional action, Jim Henley won handily over David Murff despite accusations by the Murff campaign of sign stealing. Ted Ankrum and Paul Foreman will run it off in CD10. Sadly, anti-gay CD01 candidate Roger Owen won that nomination.
On to the Republican races. I'll have some more to say about a few of these contests later.
UPDATE: With two precincts still not reporting, Richard Raymond is up to 49.89% in HD42. He may yet escape a runoff.
Though there's still a lot of uncertainty in a number of races, let's start looking at the ones that have been decided. Chris Bell was an easy winner in the race for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination:
With most of the state's precincts reporting, Bell had about 64 percent of the vote, while [Bob] Gammage had about 28 percent. Rashad Jafer, a Houston retail manager, trailed with about 8 percent."We now have a bigger mountain to climb," said Bell, who struggled with the other Democratic contenders to get attention against a Republican-dominated landscape.
"But the field is set in such a way we can easily win this," he added.
Gammage, who entered the race in December, months after Bell had started campaigning, said, "We didn't have enough time to put it all together."
That ought to quiet the factions who had been claiming that after a year of campaigning, Bell had not consolidated support in the party. Congratulations to Chris Bell on his hard-earned victory. That's good news. One other Dem statewide won a clear majority, Ag Commish candidate Hank Gilbert, who may have benefitted from having a simpler name than his opponent, Koecadee Melton.
At least, the simpler-name theory is what I'm hanging my hat on. The bad news is that Barbara Radnofsky failed to win a majority of the votes in the Senate primary, and thus will have to face perennial candidate Gene Kelly in a runoff. I'm rather at a loss to understand this. Kelly ran strongly in South Texas and (oddly, since Radnofsky dominated the big urban counties otherwise) Harris. All I can say is that if he's the nominee again, Democrats should have gone ahead and left that race alone. Nothing good can come from that.
Finally, in the Lite Guv race, Maria Alvarado and Ben Grant will face off after running neck and neck through yesterday.
On the GOP side, pretty much all of the big names were unopposed or close to it. Rick Perry got about 85% against three loonies, while David Dewhurst cruised with 78%. Railroad Commish and Anita Perry favorite won with 65%. Other contested races were more exciting, as Perry appointee and unoriginal thinker Don Willet held off Steve Smith for his State Supreme Court seat, and Court of Criminal Appeals justice Sharon Keller survived in her race. Finally, we see why former State Rep. Terry Keel wanted to knock his opponents off the ballot - he wound up with just 30% of the vote and will go into a runoff against CCA Justice Charles Holcomb.
On to the next post for the non-statewide races and a lot more action.
And we're all back from California, where the travel was made much more bearable by the fact that my daughter is a mutant alien from the Planet of Unnaturally Agreeable Toddlers. How people with more normal children handle flying is a mystery to me. Thanks to all my super guest stars and the fine job they did in my absence this week. A big round of applause, please, for Julia, Ellen, Elizabeth, and especially Jim, who is now the second-most prolific author on this site and who got one of his posts linked on the Chron opinion page.
It's primary day today and the results are trickling in. BOR has all the threads for following that you could want. I'll weigh in on the finals as they become known. In case you're curious, our home voice mail had six political robocalls between Wednesday and Sunday - two from Bob Gammage, one from Wes Clark on Gammage's behalf, one from Chris Bell, one an anonymous attack on Bell, and somewhat oddly one from "First Lady" Anita Perry on behalf od Railroad Commish Elizabeth Ames Jones. How many calls did you get?
Kuff will be back shortly, and I'm heading off to my precinct convention (are you?) You've been a good audience.
For election results tonight, check out the posts put together by my colleagues over at BOR..
Over in CD7, the Murff Campaign is accusing (here and in e-mails) the Henley campaign of massive overnight sign-stealing. Says candidate Murff:
Late last night, and into the early morning hours, I joined volunteers who placed "Murff for Congress" campaign signs at all polling locations, but it has now come to our attention that much of our effort has gone to waste.
Nearly every sign placed within loop 610 has been removed.
Who says Democrats are wusses?*
The Murff e-mail was followed by a classic reply from a salty precinct chairman who reminds us all not to put signs up until dawn on Election Day (which makes a lot of sense, although I wouldn't have ever thought of it myself).** Which would explain why, miraculously, a bajillion Garnet Coleman signs appeared at dawn. Today. Across the street.***
* (Not intended to condone sign-stealing.)
** The same e-mail suggests the sign-stealing was not done by Henley but by Republicans. Welcome to the Twilight Zone boys and girls...
*** This is the obligatory "Garnet Coleman is my hero" footnote.
UPDATE: In other, more official scuttlebutt, turnout today was expected to be low, according to Karl-Thomas. We shall see very soon how accurate his predictions are.
Others have mentioned embattled Representative Tom DeLay's election night plans, but only Juanita puts it in proper context:
March 7 - You can spent tonight watching election returns with Tom Campbell, Nick Lampson, Mike Fjeltand, or Pat Baig for free. You DeLay voters will have to cough-up at $500 and a plane ticket to DeeCee -- that's IF you got an invitation, of course.
Applying the most important test in contemporary American politics to CD22 - do you want to drink a beer with somebody who will charge you for it?
P.S. Ron Paul is going to be partying up in DC instead of in Texas too. No word on whether Cynthia-not- Nancy Sinatra will be hosting a free party.
Karl-Thomas directs us to red hot polling numbers from SUSA which indicate that more than 60 percent of Texans are unfamiliar with both Chris Bell and Bob Gammage. Only four percent are unfamiliar with Rick Perry. The margin of error is about 5 percent.
Because Perry's numbers are net-positive but still generally craptacular (44 percent positive, 37 negative), and because both Bell and Gammage have basically failed to introduce themselves to Texans thusfar, I would predict with 100 percent confidence that El Gobernador would go negative tommorrow on the winner of today's Democratic primary... if it were a two-party election. Rather, I suspect that the Carole-Rick funfest will continue, since Strayhorn is almost as well known as Perry and a fair bit more popular (among those who are familiar with them, Strayhorn is at about 49 positive and Perry is around 45 positive). The Kinkster actually registered a net-negative favorability rating of 26 positive/27 negative/21 neutral/26 unfamiliar. This may be a good time for Kinky Friedman to go back to writing mystery novels.
I guess we'll see tomorrow where the Perry camp is going to go with this. My best guess is that they're going to focus on knocking out Carole, hope Kinky fades into oblivion, and then fling mud fast and furious at the yet-to-be-named Democrat in the fall. I would encourage each and everyone of you to cut a check for whoever wins tonight (if it doesn't go to a runoff), because we all know it's coming.
P.S., I keep getting e-mail spam from the Perry campaign. Am I alone in wondering why?
UPDATE: At least publicly, Perry's pollster is saying something quite different. Personally, I think Baselice is overestimatin the percentage of voters who are Republicans (I think it's more like 40-30-30), although perhaps if by 50-15-30 he meant actual likely turnout in November, then I suppose it's possible.
Puckett dies at 45 of a stroke.
Reeve dies at 44 of lung cancer.
I'm always sad when someone I've known dies unexpectedly, but these two are really getting dangerously close to my own age. Guess it's time to make sure the Will is in order.
South Dakota has started the ball rolling in the push to outlaw abortion in the US.
(CNN) -- South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds signed a bill Monday that bans nearly all abortions in the state, legislation in direct conflict with the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in 1973.The new law defines life as originating "at the time of conception."
The new law also makes all abortions illegal, unless they threaten the life of the mother.
Although the law -- intended as a constitutional challenge to Roe v. Wade -- is set to take effect July 1, Rounds said in the statement that he expects legal action will prevent that. He added that a settlement of the issue could take years and might ultimately be decided by the nation's highest court."The reversal of a Supreme Court opinion is possible," Rounds said, pointing to the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision that reversed the 1896 ruling that states could segregate public facilities by race if equal facilities were offered.
The bill "will give the United States Supreme Court a similar opportunity to reconsider an earlier opinion."
They didn't wait very long, did they? Alito's robes have barely been hemmed and it's time to challenge Roe. Does any one else remember the loud denials that abortion was the issue that the conservatives were trying to pack SCOTUS against? We're all against those activist judges, right?
Unless they're denying my right to choose whether or not to have a child, that is.
Just a reminder: Tuesday is primary day. Go vote. Or else the Kink-i-acs will be pestering you to sign their petition until Lord knows when.
Carol Alvarado: "`I intend to temporarily - temporarily, make sure y'all wrote that down right - step aside from the Office of Mayor Pro Tem pending the outcome of the grand jury investigation."
Anne Linehan: "We got it. Temporarily. Wanna bet?"
Kevin Whited: "In my view, the move is likely to be permanent, not temporary. Mayor White's agenda and priorities trump Carol Alvarado's political needs."
Stace Medellin: "...Alvarado gave a right and left hook to those that had been attempting to use this whole situation for political gain, i.e., Addie Wiseman and Shelley Sekula-Rodriguez-Gibbs... It looks like the four employees will be going down for this, and, if all goes well, Alvarado will be back as Mayor Pro-Tem when the DA is done. Of course, who knows how long that will take. Let's see if the opportunists named above get chummy with the DA and leak out whatever they make up--it really wouldn't surprise me. Like I've always said, Wiseman is looking to climb and, given that the Republican Party doesn't have many positions for her to take a stab at, I'm sure her eyes are on the big prize in the City."
I understand the desire on the part of some professors to overturn Don't Ask Don't Tell, but it always seemed to me that those law schools which sued the government recently were trying to take the money and run, so to speak. Moreover, keeping the military - one of America's largest employers - off-campus would seem to be bad for students and the whole country. I, of course, can't speak for Kuff, and I have no idea what his feelings are on this.
I haven't read any of the opinions yet, but the Chronicle reports that the Supreme Court unanimously decided to uphold a federal law requiring schools that take federal money to open their doors to military recruiters.
Things which are supposedly imminent, on the grand scale of things:
- The release of the city's report on the Carol Alvarado payroll-padding scandal, according to the H-Chron.
- The release of Guns-and-Roses long-awaited (nine years!) album Chinese Democracy (pardon me, but considering I was about 10 (that oh-so-impressionable age) when Use Your Illusion came out, GN'R necessarily holds a special place in my heart).
- In another blast from the past, the reformation of the Ma Bell monopoly.
- The failure of New Orleans' levee system (again), according to engineers and libertarians.
- The moment when we discover whether Vince Young is as smart as Mack Brown says he is, or as dumb as the Wonderlic says he is.
Kevin Drum: "[T]he Neuropolitics folks claim to have discovered... [that] Liberals curse more than conservatives. Of course, we have reason to."
I'm not watching the Oscars, but I hear Reese Witherspoon won for best actress, so I am happy.
I get e-mail (it's a mass e-mail; I don't generally quote personal e-mails):
It all starts Tuesday night. Get yourself involved and elected as a delegate to your Senate Convention held March 25. Introduce, support and pass as many of our resolutions as you can. Go to your Senate Convention and get elected to the State Convention in Ft. Worth in June where the purge begins. We will clean house in the senate districts (every Senate District in Harris County needs its SDEC replaced as they have all lain prone before the throne of the State Party powers that be) and then we will cast aside the old guard of Slagle, Speight, Molberg, Malcolm, Soechting, Richie, Teal and elect Glen Maxiy State Chair to lead our revolution and work to root out the John Breaux, Mary Landrieu, Martin Frost, Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman, Evan Bayh, John Kerry cabal.
By no stretch of the imagination will I insist that anyone has an obligation to vote/support every chump who calls himself (or herself) a Democrat, but I found this e-mail kind of amusing.
As best I can tell, the writer of this e-mail supports one Democrat (Glen Maxey, a good man and my choice for the next state chairman), and opposes, well lets see:
- Every SDEC Member in Harris County (7 districts times 2 SDEC members each = 14 SDEC members)
- "Slagle, Speight, Molberg, Malcolm, Soechting, Richie, Teal" (7 people)
- "[T]he John Breaux, Mary Landrieu, Martin Frost, Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman, Evan Bayh, John Kerry cabal" (7 more).
That's at least 28 people right there! That has to be some kind of world record for excessive anti-Democratic Establishment angst.
There are a lot of important headlines in today's H-Chron, including the story about the Pat Tillman investigation and the story which sort of suggests Tom DeLay might lose. But here's one story that you probably won't see blogged anywhere else:
Budget cuts and poor management may be jeopardizing the future of our eyes in orbit — America's fleet of environmental satellites, vital tools for forecasting hurricanes, protecting water supplies and predicting global warming.
"The system of environmental satellites is at risk of collapse," said Richard A. Anthes, president of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research. "Every year that goes by without the system being addressed is a problem."
Anthes chairs a National Academy of Sciences committee that advises the federal government on developing and operating environmental satellites. In a report issued last year, the committee warned that "the vitality of Earth science and application programs has been placed at substantial risk by a rapidly shrinking budget."
...
Scientists warn that the consequences of neglecting Earth-observing satellites could have more than academic consequences. It is possible that when a big volcano starts rumbling in the Pacific Northwest, a swarm of tornadoes sweeps through Oklahoma or a massive hurricane bears down on New Orleans, the people in harm's way — and those responsible for their safety — will have a lot less information than they'd like about the impending threat.
Included among the cuts are projects that directly impact hurricane forecasting, including a replacement for a satellite which estimates the intensity of rainfall within a developing storm, and replacements for the NOAA polar-orbiting satellites, which provide a much closer and much more detailed view of storms than their counterparts in geostationary orbit.
Why are these cuts being made? It's pretty clear when you look at the numbers - the funding is being crowded out by the President's Vision for Space for Exploration and the costs of the crippled shuttle fleet:
NASA officials say that tight budgets tie their hands, forcing them to cut all but the most vital programs. The agency's proposed 2007 budget request contains $2.2 billion for satellites that observe the Earth and sun, compared to $6.2 billion for operating the space shuttle and International Space Station and $4 billion for developing future missions to the moon and Mars.
"We simply cannot afford all of the missions that our scientific constituencies would like us to sponsor," NASA administrator Michael Griffin told members of Congress when he testified before the House Science Committee Feb. 16.
Griffin is faced with the difficult task of balancing the space agency's science and aeronautics programs against the cost of operating the space station and shuttle, while simultaneously planning the future of human space flight.
"I truly wish that it could be otherwise, but there is only so much money," Griffin said in his congressional testimony. "We must set priorities."
While I'm a fan of manned spaceflight, but quite frankly, the return-on-investment for improved earth observation tends to be large, and it tends to be immediate. Assuming one can not have his cake and eat it to, I question whether NASA is setting the right priorities.
In other Katrina news, Ray Nagin's been in town looking for votes. Not a normal practice for mayors to go out-of-state to campaign.
This happened on Friday, but since I do BlackBerry for a living, I wanted to note that its maker, Research in Motion (RIM) settled its patent infringement lawsuit with NTP for a cool $612 million. Though one could easily ask why rejected patents should be worth money, I'm glad this is over with and think RIM made the right call. They couldn't afford the risk of an injunction-induced shutdown of their service. I'm just happy I'll never have to answer the question about what I think will happen in this case again (I'm not the only one either, apparently). Back to normality, everyone!
In honor of Markos (of DailyKos fame) coming to Texas for SxSW, I'd just like to note that - while blogging may be many things - when blogging has been coopted by AT&T advertising (see, e.g., the billboard on East 610) it is no longer cutting edge or revolutionary.
just in time for the Saturday paper, the Washington Post weighs in on that nice lady Rep. Harris, whose unique interpretation of the relationship between the words "vote" and "Right" gifted us with all the marvellous things this administration has done for our country (and gifted her with a House seat).
Rep. Harris, who doesn't think the House gives her enough scope for her talents, is running (with what is said to be unusual lack of support from her party) for Senate this year.
She's running from some stuff too
Rep. Katherine Harris (R-Fla.) has acknowledged that she requested last year that $10 million in federal funds be set aside for a Navy intelligence program in her district at the request of Washington contractor Mitchell J. Wade, who pleaded guilty last week to bribing another House member.Harris, who gained notoriety as secretary of state in Florida during the contested Bush-Gore presidential race in 2000, is running for the Senate this year. News media in her home state have been focusing on her dealings with Wade since prosecutors disclosed last week that she was the unwitting recipient of $32,000 in illegal campaign donations from Wade in 2004.
...
In court filings as part of Wade's plea for bribing convicted former representative Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.), prosecutors said Wade had had dinner with Harris early last year and discussed another fundraising event and possible funding for an unnamed Navy counterintelligence program. The court filing said the project was not funded but did not address whether Harris sought funding. She did not respond to questions about such a request last week.
On Thursday, she released copies of letters she sent to appropriations subcommittee chairmen in 2004 and 2005 requesting funding for more than 80 specific projects. She said she was doing so to bring transparency to the appropriations process, and that she supports identifying the individuals and organizations making the requests.
Last year, she first requested five defense projects totaling $15.8 million. A month later, she wrote another letter to Reps. C.W. Bill Young (R-Fla.) and John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), the senior members of the panel, adding the Wade project. It was for Naval Criminal Investigative Service airborne capability, which she placed third on her list of funding priorities. She said it was "to support counterintelligence and combating terrorism missions."
Mr. Wade, you may recall, is the gentleman whose remarkable generosity proved to be more persistent than Rep. Cunningham's honor.
Something Ms. Harris has never, in public life, shown any particular signs of being unusually gifted with.
I just hope she keeps whoever made her wash her face close, because I suspect we're going to be seeing more of her.
If you thought that the five GOP challengers whose campaigns James Leininger is funding would be his only wholly owned subsidiaries in the Texas House, you'd be wrong. Meet Dallas State Rep. Linda Harper-Brown, who's is endorsing Leininger-backed Nathan Macias against State Rep. Carter Casteel. From the Quorum Report:
Today, a direct mail piece hit in the Carter Casteel-Nathan Macias race in which Linda Harper-Brown endorsed the challenger. Parroting the rhetoric now standard in all of the Leininger 5 races, Harper-Brown accuses Casteel of being the most liberal member of the Republican Caucus and says that she worked to block good conservative legislation.Of course, others would argue that what Harper-Brown considers conservative legislation would have severely limited local control and imposed unfunded mandates on local government, forcing city councils, school boards and commissioners courts to either cut services or raise local taxes. But we will leave that argument for another time.
The reverberations are already being felt around the Capitol.
Harper-Brown is certainly free to exercise her First Amendment rights to engage in political campaigns, but she will have a price to pay. As more than one lobbyist and member has already noted, Reagan's 11th Commandment is now history. In addition, Harper-Brown has marked herself among her colleagues as a member who operates in bad faith. Disagree with her about legislation and she might get involved in your primary.
Oh, and by the way. Harper-Brown has received $20,000 from James Leininger, the financer of the Leininger 5. One contribution was $5,000 from the San Antonio millionaire. The other $15,000 was from yet another one of the PACs all but exclusively funded by Leininger. This one is named All Children Matter PAC.
That represents 18% of the $118,000 or so she has raised on her January 2005-January 2006 reports. With that $20,000, Leininger is Harper-Brown's single largest contributor.
So he's not trying to buy a piece of the Lege, he's trying to increase the stake he already has.
Harper-Brown isn't confining herself to just this race, either. Along with Jodie Laubenberg, Bill Keffer, Bill Zedler, and the outgoing Mary Denny, she's endorsing Charlie Geren's opponent, Chris Hatley. Geren's response, also at QR, is sharp:
"I'd much rather have the endorsement of Speaker Craddick, Lt. Governor Dewhurst, former Lt. Governor Bill Ratliff along with Senators Brimer and Harris than any of that sophomore class and especially Zedler who said he had nothing to do with the Hatley Campaign so he's just a liar. As a liar, he fits right in to the Hatley Campaign. Mary Denny was just going to get beat so she quit.""I will say it again. I will never whore for Dr. Leininger."
Boy howdy is the upcoming special session going to be fun. South Texas Chisme has more.
Yesterday the UH Law Center put on a symposium on LNG (liquefied natural gas) terminal siting, part of which was a really nice lunch. I ended up sitting next to Juan Parras, whose son, John, opposed Carol Alvarado in last year's city elections. I've tried to be optimistic about our mayor pro tem's stumbles, but these last couple of weeks have been kind of hard to stomach; they're getting to be kind of embarassing for the whole city. Incidentally, the Official Carol Alvarado Resignation Watch has begun:
Mayor Bill White spoke with some City Council members Friday to feel them out about who should be mayor pro tem if Councilwoman Carol Alvarado relinquishes the post amid a payroll-padding scandal.
White said he has not spoken with Alvarado about stepping down as mayor pro tem, and a spokesman for the councilwoman said she has not considered it.
"Carol needs to make decisions about that," White said. "She has professionals that are counseling her."
As Alvardo is getting lawyered up, I'm not sure whether she's planning on staying or leaving. But I felt that, like most Houstonians I suppose, Parras wasn't too happy about this, but he did seem to enjoy talking about his son breaking the UH Degree mini-scandal.
And speaking of UH, we're having our student government and dormitory elections here soon, and the rap is that we have too many offices and too few candidates (some would say its because nobody cares anymore). As the temporarily-appointed Election Commissioner for the RHA election, I've told people that I'm not "disappointed" that all of our races are unexciting (makes it easier to run the election). Nevertheless, it's not a good sign of enthusiasm. At least the UT student government electionswere contested! (For any UH folk out there - RHA elections are March 8th - Vote!)
Also, remember to attend your precinct conventions on Tuesday. Your regular polling place at 7:15. I'll be across the street at Wheeler Avenue Baptist if I can sneak out of Wills early enough.
And speaking of Wills, I can't finish this post without mentioning Anna Nicole Smith's day in the Supreme Court this week. Which brings us back full circle, I guess - the lawyer who opposed Anna Nicole in state court is now representing Carol Alvarado.
Fighin' Jay Lee (None more surly than he) has some of the gory details on AOL's pay-for-email plan. Check it out.
Whatever else you may think of this effort, I find it fascinating.
Those campaign block-walkers have eagle eyes and sharp ears. Got an Aggie flag in your yard or a Jesus fish stuck on your car? Duly noted. Mention that your son is in the Navy? Got it.Such are the snippets of data that Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land, has gleaned as his campaign has labored for months to target existing and potential supporters. They're working house by house across the 22nd Congressional District in advance of Tuesday's four-way GOP primary.
The nuts-and-bolts information gathered during those house calls — whether constituents back DeLay, if they want a yard sign or bumper sticker, and if they'd like to get more information from the campaign — is gold to the DeLay team.
For DeLay, a 22-year incumbent who is fighting for another term, the intelligence is critical to his goal of wringing as large a margin as he can out of a primary contest that may wind up being closer than he would prefer.
The responses are entered into a growing database of GOP voters that the campaign uses to tailor its mailings, phone calls and other outreach, and to profile tens of thousands of voters across the district's four counties.
[...]
The technology is now trickling down to statewide races, such as for governor or U.S. Senate. DeLay is likely one of the few House contenders operating at this fine-tuned level, said Michael McDonald, an assistant professor of government at George Mason University.
Southern Methodist University political scientist Cal Jillson said "it takes a lot of money, so it's only going to be in signature races where you have millions of dollars to get on television and do all the detail stuff from yard signs to mailers that go to targeted places in your district."
[...]
The DeLay team has sent out eight pieces of direct mail that have generated hundreds of mailed-back forms filled with information for the database.
The campaign also develops lists of supporters by using results of prior elections to find precincts with high concentrations of Republican voters.
Campaign workers and volunteers have walked the blocks in those neighborhoods and knocked on doors to identify DeLay supporters, [campaign manager Chris] Homan said.
"We can slice and dice names on a block-by-block basis to see how many people will volunteer," he said, noting that about 1,500 people are now signed up.
Some of this sounds not all that different from old-fashioned methods. Having the right tools - software and enough people power, in particular - makes the difference. There were no revelations to DeLayVsWorld.
One thing to note: the tone in this article that the primary is not a slamdunk for DeLay. I'll say it again: At what level of support do you have to say that DeLay isn't even that popular among his own supposed base? Maybe we'll find out soon.
(Blogging from the road here. The hotel has WiFi in the rooms, but I couldn't get enough signal to get an IP address, so after 30 minutes on the phone with tech support I moved to the bar, where the singal strength is excellent. Were I of a more suspicious nature I'd wonder if that was on purpose, but since they didn't force me to buy a drink and are letting me click away in peace, I'll overlook it.
Since I worked so hard to get online, I may as well take advantage of the opportunity, so...)
Now this is standing up for principles.
The Thermals, a rambunctious rock band from Portland, Ore., were en route between gigs last year when they got a phone call from their label, Sub Pop. Hummer wanted to pay them $50,000 for the right to use their song "It's Trivia" in a commercial."We thought about it for about 15 seconds, maybe," lead singer Hutch Harris said.
They said no.
Washington D.C.'s Trans Am were offered $180,000 by Hummer for the song "Total Information Awareness."
"We figured it was almost like giving music to the Army, or Exxon," guitarist Philip Manley said.
They said no.
The post-punk band LiLiPUT, who broke up more than 20 years ago, could have pocketed $50,000 for "Heidi's Head" after making close to nothing during their five-year existence. But they, too, said no.
"At least I can sleep without nightmares," Marlene Marder reasoned.
[...]
Lyle Hysen runs Bank Robber Music, a licensing group that pitches songs to film, television and advertisement companies. He's gotten his clients featured in shows like "Six Feet Under" and "The L Word" and in car ads by Volkswagen and Jaguar.
Hummer, however, has been a nonstarter.
"My standard line is you guys will play a hundred million gigs before you see this amount of money," Hysen said. "Usually they come back with, 'We'll do anything BUT Hummer.'"
It's really easy for most of us to say we'd never sell out, because most of us are never given the opportunity to do so. You can call 'em stupid if you want to, but I'll remind you that money isn't supposed to be everything. I say they did the right thing by being true to what they believed. Link via Kos.
As someone who loves a great cheeseburger above almost all else, I think that this idea is a very good one.
In a new twist on cattle branding, U.S. livestock may now get individual identification numbers.Today in Washington, a nonprofit industry group plans to launch a program that aims to assign each cow, bison and other livestock its own 15-digit number and track their movements in a national database. Animals would be tagged, perhaps in the ear with a bar code or a radio-frequency chip. Another alternative: a chip could be implanted beneath the animal's skin.
The obvious question is, of course, why haven't we been doing this for years? Unique identifiers are common for most other business assets above a certain value. And given the risks beef has presented in the food supply recently (E Coli, Mad Cow, etc.), there's another compelling reason, too.
Litigation-averse producers don't necessarily see it that way. However, the same tort fear is driving large buyers to demand this type of system; I guess they want to be able to indemnify producers when end customers throw down in court.
U.S. ranchers have long resisted an ID tracking program partly because they fear they may be liable for a food-safety problem. But McDonald's Corp. and other large beef customers have been pushing for it. Federal regulators also have been prodding the industry for such a system.
I love it when our legal system actually drives rational behavior.
I'm leaving in a few minutes for a trip to California for a week, so I'll be turning over the blog to my fine collection of guest hosts. If I have the opportunity to pop in and say something I will, but otherwise things will be in their hands. I'll be back on March 7. See you later!
With the primary election less than one week from today, I asked both Democratic challengers in HD146 to send me a statement about why you should vote for them. The following is Borris Miles' statement.
It’s time for a change. On Tuesday, the voters will have the rare opportunity to gain something we haven’t had for a long time: a hard-working voice for our district.As the only candidate in this race who was born and raised in the district and has strong roots throughout the district, I feel like I offer the best voice for our district. I’ve worked my way up as a son of Sunnyside, working my way through school and college to become, first an HISD police officer and, for the past 14 years, a successful small businessman. Borris L. Miles Insurance is the result of and indication of my dedication to my community. Today, we write over $12 million in policies from a business I started from scratch. I’ve bought and renovated two city blocks along Almeda because I believe in giving back to the community that has made me what I am. I’ve given to my community through youth groups, first time homebuyers, and counseling for first-time offenders. That’s a track record I’m proud of and one that I look to continue while in office.
Many years ago, there were tireless people who worked to fulfill the dream that we could have access to opportunity. If people still believe the dream lies in our past, they should vote for Mr. Edwards. But the new dream isn’t to get in the restaurant … it’s to own the restaurant! If the dream of opportunity and progress is shared by anyone in District 146, then I’d suggest my life is an example of fighting for that dream and I believe I’m the candidate for them.
We have a good deal of unmet needs in this district that have gone ignored for too long: schools that need better funding, children that need better health insurance, communities that need economic development, and homeowners that don’t view rising property taxes as a Republican or Democratic issue.
It’s time for a change.
Thank you, Borris Miles. Please see the previous entry for Al Bennett's statement.
With the primary election less than one week from today, I asked both Democratic challengers in HD146 to send me a statement about why you should vote for them. The following is Al Bennett's statement.
Residents of District 146 should vote for me because I am uniquely qualified to effectively fight on behalf of our community's interests in the committee rooms and on the floor of the Texas House of Representatives. I have the professional experience, and the community service and educational background to be effective immediately.Professionally, I have been practicing law in Houston for the past fourteen years, the first three with Fulbright & Jaworski, L.L.P. I later practiced with Solar & Fernandes, L.L.P., a wholly owned minority firm, for four years. And since 1998, I have owned and operated my own law firm, the Law Offices of Alfred H. Bennett. I am also an Adjunct Professor of Law at the Thurgood Marshall of Law at Texas Southern University. And previously, I served as an intern to the Hon. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) as part of the Mickey Leland Congressional Internship Program.
My community involvement has also been and remains quite extensive. I am the current Vice-President of the Parkwood Drive Civic Club, and member of the Board of Directors of the East Downtown Management District and the University of Texas School of Law Alumni Association. In addition, I am the current Chair of the Lawyer Referral & Information Services Committee for the State Bar of Texas, former committee member of the State Bar of Texas Grievance Committee 4A, and past president of the Houston Lawyers Association, the local affiliate of the National Bar Association.
And finally, my educational background has prepared me to serve the district well. I received my B.S. in Political Science from the University of Houston in 1988 and a J.D. from the University of Texas School of Law in 1991.
A vote for Al Bennett is a Vote for Effective Change.
Thank you, Al Bennett. Please see the next entry for Borris Miles' statement.
Mayor Pro Tem Carol Alvarado has written a letter to her constituents and another to the public taking full responsibility for what happened in her office. The public letter is printed as an op-ed in today's paper. I've got a copy of each and am reproducing it beneath the fold. I don't have time to comment on this now, so read for yourself and see what you think.
WHEN I first learned that certain employees of the office of the mayor pro-tem had been systematically awarding themselves improper bonuses and pay raises, I was hurt and outraged. As mayor pro-tem, I put my trust in these individuals and believed I had every reason to do so.
More important than my personal anger, however, is the perfectly appropriate anger felt by city of Houston taxpayers who have been let down by this incident.
As mayor pro-tem, I accept responsibility for what happened — as well as the responsibility for making sure it never happens again. I employed these individuals and gave them my trust, and I trusted that the systems the city has in place to make sure we properly handle the taxpayers' money worked. I was wrong on both counts.
The appropriate authorities are investigating this matter to determine if any individuals should face criminal charges. I have pledged my full support and urge that everyone involved do the same. In my view, this investigation is the first step on the road to reform.
Meanwhile, at City Hall, I intend to work with Mayor Bill White and his Finance and Administration Department, City Controller Annise Parker and her staff as well as all of my colleagues on City Council to refine the process to ensure that this sort of thing cannot be repeated.
In my District I City Council office and in the office of the mayor pro-tem, I intend to make sure the people I employ are of the highest ethical and moral character, as well as the most professionally skilled individuals available. I will supervise them intently.
It would be easy for me to point fingers of blame and attempt to deflect responsibility for this violation of the public trust. It is the unfortunate nature of politics to take credit for the good news and lay blame for the bad. But I refuse to do that. Instead, I do accept responsibility for what occurred under my watch, and I accept the responsibility of fixing the problem and maintaining the confidence of the people who have elected me to this office.
For any government to meet the needs of the people it serves, it must have an effective mechanism in place to manage all of the matters for which that government is responsible. It must also have the right people, both elected officials and professional staff, who are dedicated to ethically and efficiently getting the job done on behalf of their constituents.
In my four years as the council member representing Houston City Council District I, I have seen countless examples of how the system and the people who manage it have worked in concert to serve all of Houston's citizens. Each instance has made me proud. I have also seen instances in which one or the other has failed and the people have not been well served.
In such cases, it is the responsibility of elected officials like myself to diagnose the problem and make the changes necessary to solve it.
Clearly the process of adjusting employee pay must be changed. Having one process for traditional raises and another for performance bonuses leads to confusion and creates the opportunity for fraud. In addition, we must no longer allow staff to sign off on pay adjustments on behalf of elected officials. Such a delegation of signing authority, if permitted at all, should only be allowed for matters of the most mundane nature. Other possible reforms may become evident when the investigation is complete. I am eager to pursue them as well.
Even if what occurred resulted in the misuse of only a single taxpayer dollar, as opposed to tens of thousands of dollars, it cannot be tolerated.
The disturbing series of facts that have emerged offer an unfortunate instance in which both the system and the people hired to manage it failed to serve Houston taxpayers. Corrective action must and will be taken.
Council Member Alvarado¹s letter to her constituents reads as follows:
Dear Friends and Residents of Houston City Council, District I:
It is my firm belief that the people of District I, and all the people of
Houston, deserve a government that is worthy of their trust and respect. I
am at City Hall every day and I work with people who believe the same and
strive to do their utmost to make sure you are well served and can be proud
of your local government.
That is why it is particularly distressing when I learn of incidents in
which you are not well served. In recent weeks there has been extensive
(and appropriate) news media coverage of one such incident - and
unfortunately it is an incident that occurred under my watch.
When I first learned that employees of the office of the Mayor Pro Tem had
been improperly manipulating the system to award themselves undeserved
bonuses and pay raises, I was both saddened and angered. As your Mayor Pro
Tem I am committed to making sure that the office operates with the highest
standards of ethics and efficiency. In this case, due to the actions of
others without my knowledge, I have been unable to keep that commitment.
I want to be perfectly clear - although certain staff members under my
supervision acted improperly without my knowledge, the responsibility is
mine. More importantly, it is my responsibility to make sure nothing like
this ever happens again.
The appropriate authorities are investigating this matter to determine
whether criminal charges should be filed against the individuals involved
and I pledge my full support for that investigation. Meanwhile, I will work
with Mayor Bill White and his Finance and Administration Department,
Controller Annise Parker and her staff and all of my colleagues on City
Council to address any deficiencies in the bureaucracy that allowed these
individuals to betray both our city and your trust.
I am honored to serve as your representative on City Council and as Mayor
Pro Tem. I am humbled by the faith and trust you have placed in me. And, I
am committed to doing all I can to maintain that faith and trust and serve
you in the manner you expect and deserve.
Sincerely,
Carol Alvarado
I noted the concept of certified email awhile back as a spamfighting tool. AOL appears to be heading in that direction, and it's causing some heartburn among various advocacy groups.
"The creativity and ingenuity that have driven the Internet have always relied on an open platform where the haves and have-nots get treated equally," said Eli Pariser, executive director of MoveOn.org Civic Action. "This e-mail tax system is a big step toward dismantling that system."The alliance protesting the move includes liberal activist group MoveOn, the U.S. Humane Society, labor and environmental groups and online medical communities. It also encompasses conservative political groups that rely heavily on e-mail lists, MoveOn spokesman Trevor Fitzgibbon said.
AOL spokesman Nicholas Graham replied: "No matter what the political rhetoric is, AOL will remain resolute in our pursuit of improving e-mail safety and security in doing what is right for our members. That simply is not going to change.
"There is no substantive news here, just because some disparate groups of advocates have come together for an event reminiscent of the bar scene in the first Star Wars movie."
Gilles Frydman of the Association of Cancer Online Resources said bulk e-mail charges will cause problems for organizations like hers.
"We cannot pay for the service. We don't have the money," Frydman said.
"We have been doing this for 11 years based on the standards of Internet communication. Those standards do not include paying for service. This one company is trying to transform unilaterally how the Internet works."
Frydman said some patients with rare forms of cancer may have trouble receiving updated information on a timely basis.
I'm not sure that comparing cancer patients to freaky aliens is a good public relations move. I think there's merit in the concept of shifting the economic burden of bulk email towards the sender, but there's also certainly room for flexibility. I see no reason why AOL (or Yahoo, which is also considering this) can't carve out exceptions for nonprofits and other noncommercial groups. For the most part, they're not the big senders, anyway. There's a site called DearAOL that's trying to convice AOL of that. I hope some kind of accomodation can be reached, because it won't be pretty otherwise.