More financial gloom from the school districts

As we know, school districts are sounding the alarm about their rising costs and the lack of capability they've been given to deal with those costs. Here's more about this problem.

Unless a fix is enacted during next year's legislative session, school districts will be faced with difficult choices, including closing campuses and firing teachers, said Mike Falick, president of the Spring Branch school board.

"It's an untenable system. No business in the world would be able to survive with fuel, health insurance and salary increases and a flat revenue source," Falick said. "It's not sustainable.

Some school districts eventually will face "insolvency, some in a shorter time than others," he said.

Humble Independent School District is about two years away from insolvency, Superintendent Guy Sconzo said. It will cover a $7 million budget deficit this year and a projected $23 million deficit next year by dipping into its $53 million reserve fund.

Humble ISD has cut spending by $17.5 million since 2002, Sconzo said, but is struggling with inflation and enrollment growth. Each new student costs the district about $6,800, but it gets only $4,937 from all sources to educate that student, he said.

"As we reduce more, we get on the road of becoming Minimum ISD. We will be able to comply and meet state laws and regulations, but we can't do anything more than that because we can't afford to," Sconzo said.

It's going to take pressure from places like Humble to make something happen on this. People move to the suburbs for the schools. They're not going to like being told that those schools can't afford to do things they expect them to do.

House Speaker Tom Craddick, R-Midland, said inflation has had a significant impact on public schools in his home district, especially in transportation and energy costs.

"For more than 60 years we have generally required school districts to cut spending or raise taxes to deal with inflationary pressures," he said. "I continue to believe that a long-term solution for public school finance will require updating the distribution formulas and re-evaluating these long-standing practices."

Craddick appointed a special legislative panel to explore education problems and said he expects they will be a high legislative priority in 2009.

[...]

Money for public schools is pegged on what districts were getting per student in 2006, called "target revenue" in school finance jargon, and officials complain those amounts are arbitrary, punishing some districts and rewarding others without rhyme or reason.

School officials also are miffed that the state benefits from rising property values. Instead of school districts keeping extra revenue from appraisal increases, the state subtracts that amount from its education funding to those districts. The only extra money for school districts goes to cover student enrollment increases.

Developing a permanent cost-of-living index to help schools cope with annual inflation will be a top priority next year, said Rep. Dan Branch, R-Dallas, chairman of the House Select Committee on Higher and Public Education Finance.

Lawmakers also will consider allowing tax revenue from property value increases to stay in school districts, he said.

Some school officials contend the state should spend at least $4 billion of a projected $10.7 billion budget surplus next year on public education.

Yes, remember the surplus? Some of that is fueled by increased sales tax revenue, some by taxes on oil, and some by rising property tax revenues. In a system that wasn't designed to fail, the schools would be able to benefit from this. Speaker Craddick may say that he recognizes the schools' need for ways to deal with inflationary pressures, but he's never been a friend to the public schools, and I have serious doubts about his willingness to actually fix what's broken here. It would be much better to have another Speaker in place so we don't have to depend on whatever largesse he may have.

High oil prices are good for Texas

At least, they're good for the budget.

The nation may be on the verge of a recession, but the Texas economy is doing well enough for Comptroller Susan Combs to predict Tuesday that the Legislature will have a $10.7 billion surplus when it convenes in January.

Much of the extra money can be attributed to record oil prices. While motorists are being socked with ever-increasing gasoline costs, oil and gas employment in Texas has been booming, the comptroller's office reported.

If Combs' early forecast holds up, Gov. Rick Perry would like to return part of the money to the taxpayers in the form of tax cuts or rebate checks, spokesman Robert Black said. But those steps would need legislative action.

[...]

"With a surplus of this magnitude, I know the governor believes we need to look at some sort of tax relief, whether it be on property taxes, business taxes or some type of actual rebate, like the federal government can do but we haven't been able to," Black said.

The last installment of school property tax cuts ordered by Perry and the Legislature in 2006 went into effect last year, but much of the savings already has been eroded by rising property values and appraisals.

An expanded business tax, enacted to help pay for the property tax reductions, is still untried and under fire. Companies had until May 15 to file their first reports under the new levy, and Combs recently extended that deadline by 30 days.

Perry floated the tax rebate idea in the 2007 session, but it went nowhere. It would require a constitutional amendment, including a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate plus approval by Texas voters.

Black acknowledged that there will be a need for increased spending on crucial needs, such as Medicaid and public education, including higher fuel costs for school buses, and the Legislature will have to balance those demands.

But, he added, the governor wants to keep Texas' economic engine "going and growing."

In budget-preparation instructions this week, the governor's office and the Legislative Budget Board asked agencies to submit zero-growth spending requests plus options for reducing spending by 10 percent.

I'm glad to see that the need to spend more on things like education, if only to cover rising costs, has been acknowledged by the Governor's office. Let's just say that I'm skeptical about the words getting translated into actions, however. I think there's going to be a lot of pressure to cut or even abolish the business margins tax, and I fear that will be given priority. As always, the best way to ensure that education isn't given the shaft is to make sure we have a Speaker who actually cares about it. You know what that means.

School districts predict financial disaster in their futures

A little cheery news for your morning.

Spring Branch ISD Superintendent Duncan Klussmann said recently that every school district in the state faces bankruptcy in three to seven years unless the Legislature makes changes when it convenes next year.

Klussmann said the Legislature stripped school districts of the means to cope with normal inflation when it froze revenues at 2006 levels. As a result, school districts are being forced to deplete their reserve funds to balance budgets beset with mounting deficits.

"Duncan is correct that the financial situation is going to become dire unless the Legislature takes action," [HISD spokesman Terry] Abbott said. "School districts are indeed frozen -- they can raise almost no additional revenue.

"We have a very strong and healthy reserve fund, thanks to good, long-term policy and planning. But the state's current finance system doesn't afford school districts increases in revenue for pay raises for teachers or steadily rising fuel bills or utility bills or health care costs," he said.

Don't forget to include food costs in this discussion as well. Between food, fuel, and electricity, schools across Texas have been hit with enormous cost increases lately, without being given extra money to absorb them. And the only thing the Lege accomplished in those 2006 special sessions relating to schools was to cut property taxes and replace the lost revenue with an inadequate and widely hated business tax. It's a fine mess they're in, one mostly not of their own making, and as long as Tom Craddick is the Speaker of the House, it's a mess that can only get worse, because Craddick has shown that he has no interest in actually fixing it. Which is to say, it's yet another good reason to support TexBlog PAC and work to get a Democratic majority in the House.

Much of the rest of the article is given to "solutions" to this looming crisis as expounded by Sen. Dan Patrick. Which in his world means a massive shift of the financial burden to lower-income folks by raising sales taxes, with some blame for undocumented immigrants thrown in. The latter is a shame, given that Patrick has shown he is capable of discussing the topic in a rational manner, but I suppose he just can't help himself. While it's always illuminating to know what the Patrick wing of the party plans to do if given the chance, it seems to me that if only as a sop to that oft-elusive ideal known as "balance" it might have been nice to try to get a few words as well from a real expert on education and school finance, like Rep. Scott Hochberg. Alas, we have no such luck.

When all else fails, create a task force

It's that time of the year, isn't it?

House Speaker tom Craddick today announced the Select Committee on Property Tax Relief and Appraisal Reform, headed by the inimitable Rep. John Otto, R-Dayton.

Otto's been around long enough to know that such work can be a thankless task, however dedicated he may be to accomplishing it.

Just ask [Tom] Pauken, whose work product took fire from groups including the Center for Public Policy Priorities, Texas Association of Counties and Texas Municipal League.

For those of you who just tuned in, this is the Republicans' biennial attempt to commit budgetary seppuku by cramming through a bill to lower the property tax appraisal cap or to impose revenue caps, which are even more insidious. They failed last time, and it is to be hoped they will fail again. Better yet, if we elect a Democratic majority to the House, we can focus on more important things, like actually fixing school finance and requiring sales price disclosure so that high-end and commercial properties can be made to shoulder their fair share of the tax burden. In the meantime, the usual shenanigans will proceed as always.

Twelve-month re-ups the hard way

Last year, the Lege passed HB109, which restored some of the families that had been cut from CHIP back to the program. Despite some fierce resistance from various Republicans, it reinstated a 12-month period for enrollment; the 6-month period that it replaced was a major cause for eligible families being dropped from the rolls, as the process is onerous and easy to mess up.

Unfortunately, the same 12-month period wasn't granted for food stamp recipients. But in a rather ironic turn of events, the massive problems with the new eligibility software that the Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) uses, that 12-month period was imposed out of necessity.

Stephanie Goodman, spokeswoman for the state Health and Human Services Commission, said nearly 900,000 needy families will have to be interviewed only once every 12 months, starting in June.

"We needed to catch that breather," Ms. Goodman said.

She said relieving state workers of interview duties will help them catch up on a backlog of food stamp applications.

Nutrition policy expert Celia Hagert of the Center for Public Policy Priorities, which advocates for low-income Texans, applauded the state's move.

"They found a solution that works for everybody," Ms. Hagert said.

The state has been scrambling to rebuild its eligibility-screening workforce and improve performance at four privately run call centers after the disastrous 2006 launch of a partly privatized system of social program signups.

Last year, problems escalated again after the commission ordered that a troubled computer system known as TIERS, for Texas Integrated Eligibility Redesign System, handle tens of thousands of low-income women's applications for free pap smears and contraceptives.

Women who had family members on welfare or Medicaid complained that the relatives' cases also were dragged into TIERS. The Web-based system is unpopular with many state employees who say it's cumbersome. The state defends TIERS, saying it makes decision-making more uniform.

As we have seen before, these problems with TIERS have caused the HHSC to run afoul of federal regulations concerning food stamp application processing. This policy change, which for sure would have faced the same levels of pushback from the likes of David Dewhurst had it been part of a bill making its way through the Lege, was made because of the shortcomings of the same privatization fiasco that was passed in the name of saving money. Justice is rarely this poetic. Now perhaps we can see how much better the 12-month window serves the people who depend on this program, and make it an official policy change next year. It may be a strange and counterproductive way to get to a good policy result, but the fact of getting there is what would matter.

The DMN writes about the HHSC

From yesterday, a familiar litany.

Lawmakers are worried that a partly privatized system for determining who receives public assistance is still shaky and may not be salvageable.

Paperwork for applicants has been lost. Needy Texans have received little help from state workers when they've complained of mistakes. And all too often, Texans who should qualify for state-paid health care and other benefits have been refused because of such errors.

When one closely watched measure of the state's performance on aid requests plunged recently, lawmakers sharply questioned Health and Human Services Commissioner Albert Hawkins. He has announced several new initiatives this year to lure and retain state eligibility workers - and to train more of them on a computer system causing most of the delays.

But those steps haven't calmed lawmakers' nerves. They and advocates for the poor are skeptical he can quickly fix a system that's been in crisis for most of the five years since the Legislature and Gov. Rick Perry slashed the payroll of the state's welfare offices and ordered a shift of many screening duties to four privately run call centers.

State leaders acknowledge that promised cost savings haven't materialized and mistakes are common. Now, the system could be headed for more severe problems, as a jittery economy means more Texans may soon apply for public assistance.

The problems could also distract Texas officials as they separately seek to overhaul Medicaid, the nation's main health care program for the poor. Some advocates for low-income Texans fear that if Mr. Hawkins' agency remains preoccupied with fixing the eligibility system, it will be distracted just as it needs to focus on huge changes designed to cover more adults and improve preventative and dental care for poor children.

"These problems need to be resolved now - not in the next [legislative] session - because people's health is at stake," said Senate Health and Human Services Committee Chairwoman Jane Nelson, R-Flower Mound.

It's all stuff we've seen and heard before, though the bit about things getting worse as the economy sinks is a new concern. There's no way around the fact that this has been a fiasco of biblical proportions from the beginning - worsened service, increased costs instead of promised savings, the canning of the outsourcer, and so forth. It's failed in every possible way, with more to come as it continues to roll out because there's no return.

State officials acknowledge the failures but say there's no turning back. The new system is "a much more flexible system. It's modern, it's Web-based, and it allows us to provide Texans with a great deal of choice in how they apply for benefits," said Stephanie Goodman, a Health and Human Services Commission spokeswoman.

She said the promised savings and improved efficiency haven't materialized because the program ordered by lawmakers in 2003 hasn't been fully implemented. "But it's also incredibly difficult to modernize a system that 4 million Texans rely on every day. It's like trying to remodel a hotel that's full of guests," Ms. Goodman added.

I'm sure the old system was in need of an upgrade, and I know fully well how painful such transitions can be. But we compounded all of that woe by trying to do it on the cheap, with an inexperienced vendor instead of the people who knew what they were doing. It would be amusing in a "Dilbert" kind of way if it weren't for all the suffering that has resulted.

Anyway, read it and weep. And remember there will be more to come soon.

"Privatization failure is taxpayers' burden"

This Statesman editorial nails it.

Because of an effort five years ago to run part of state government more like a business, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission is struggling to provide food and medical services to some of the state's poorest people. It's a disaster that ought to be remembered every time a legislator or lobbyist starts babbling that "privatization" of this or that state service will boost efficiency, lower costs to taxpayers and cure all fraud and waste.

As the American-Statesman's Corrie MacLaggan outlined in a Sunday story, the commission's staff of about 6,500 workers -- down from about 10,400 in 1998 despite the state's population growth -- who determine the eligibility of applicants for aid is heavily overworked and increasingly inexperienced. Since September, the commission has hired 1,010 workers, even as 733, including veterans who know the system, quit.

These employees process applications for food stamps and Medicaid for about 3.7 million people. To do so, they must master both the rules for qualifying and the computer systems to track applicants. Because of the staff's workload and inexperience, many applicants are having to wait too long for help.

Those tempted to shrug off the departures as "good-bye, good riddance" should understand that such turnover hits taxpayers in the pocketbook. It costs $7,500 to train an eligibility worker, so when one leaves, the investment in training is not only lost, more must be spent for the next worker.

[...]

You can argue that the privatization theory is correct but, in this case, was badly carried out; or that the theory is wrong and no amount of competence could have saved it; or that the theory is wrong and it was incompetently carried out.

What's not debatable is that this attempt to run state government more like a business failed. And the price for that failure is being paid by taxpayers, the state workers and poor people who truly need the help.

Amen. Be sure to read that Sunday Statesman article, too. I believe the HHSC fiasco will be one of the biggest components of Rick Perry's legacy when he finally leaves office. In so many ways, it characterizes his tenure as Governor. The Bluebonnet blog has more.

TIERS and problems go hand in hand

From the "Stuff I bookmarked then totally forgot to blog about because the primary was so crazy" comes this story about more trouble with the TIERS system.

To Texans applying for food stamps, it may not seem to matter whether their application goes through the state's old computer enrollment system or the newer one.

But new state data show that fewer than half of Texas food stamp applications processed using the updated computer system, known as TIERS, are completed within the 30 days required by the federal government. TIERS average of 48 percent of applications within 30 days is significantly lower than the 90 percent under the old system, SAVERR.

That 48 percent -- which is from December, the last month available -- represents a steady decline from last summer. The federal standard is 95 percent. See page 26 of this report. Timeliness is also an issue for Medicaid applications.

"If we are that abysmally low on meeting federal timeliness requirements," State Rep. Patrick Rose, D-Dripping Springs, told state health officials during a Capitol hearing today, "it makes sense to figure out what those kinks are before we begin to expand (TIERS) further."

But TIERS expansion is already under way. About 350,000 cases for programs such as food stamps and Medicaid are in TIERS, compared to about 150,000 a year ago, Rose said.

Timeliness isn't just an issue, it can be the difference between getting your application processed at all and having to do it all over again from scratch. The explanation is a bit complicated, but it goes like this:

Federal law requires HHSC to make a decision on a client's application within 30 days of it being filed. Because the unit of HHSC that is using TIERS is so far behind, it isn't even getting to schedule client interviews before the 40th day in many cases. That's bad (and against federal regulations), but it gets worse. Now if a client is missing anything for his application, he has an extremely small window to furnish it, because if the process is not completed within 60 days, it gets thrown out, and the client has to start all over again from scratch. Which generally means another six weeks or so of waiting for another appointment.

Part of the problem with this, of course, is that in the old days, clients did these applications at local branch offices of HHSC, which meant that any questions about what was needed and what might be missing could be easily and quickly answered, thus ensuring that the applications could get done right the first time. Now, in the consolidated-and-outsourced world, there are only a few of these locations, so a client may show up at an interview a couple hundred miles from home only to learn that some critical piece of information is absent, and there's no time to get it into the application before the deadline. Oops.

So the problems with TIERS, which is the root cause of all this, are causing needless hardships on people, and may be putting the state in violation of federal law. And this system is going to be expanded. Isn't that lovely? I hope that in the event of a Democratic takeover of the State House, that a thorough review and revision to 2003's HB2293 will be high on the priority list, because this is a travesty.

HISD becomes a rich district

Strange days.

For the first time, the Houston school district expects that it will have to pay several million dollars to the state under the controversial Robin Hood funding system.

The oddity involving the state's largest district is prompting renewed calls for changes to Texas' complex school funding laws, which require property-wealthy districts to share money with poorer ones.

Melinda Garrett, the Houston school district's chief financial officer, announced during a school board workshop Thursday that the district will owe an estimated $3.7 million to the state next year.

The hit won't be crippling -- it's only a sliver of the district's approximately $1.5 billion budget -- but school leaders said the funding system is flawed when a big-city district that serves mostly low-income children is forced to give up money.

"It will start getting worse every year," Garrett told the board.

She explained that the Houston Independent School District is jumping into the wealthy category because property values in the city are rising, but student enrollment is declining. That mix has boosted HISD's property value per student, the measure that the state uses to determine which districts must share their money.

"Our district is getting wealthier because we're a business hub, and that's a good thing," said David Thompson, a school finance expert and an attorney representing HISD and other districts. "But our population still has a growing number of poor and at-risk kids who need additional services. The state cannot have its largest district be unsupported by the state."

Board members agreed that Texas' school funding system is in need of an overhaul.

I think anyone who pays the least bit of attention to this realizes that the school funding system needs an overhaul. Unfortunately, what we've gotten is an illusory property tax cut being paid for in the short term by a cash surplus, a fast-growing school population with rising fixed costs (like electricity and gasoline) they can't control, and a state leadership in place that isn't interested in doing anything about it. Maybe if we get a Democratic Speaker next year, the House at least can take a real step in this direction, but the needed change isn't going to happen until there's a different Governor. If we're lucky, the system won't yet be in crisis by then.

Time for another S-CHIP veto override effort

Another attempt to override President Bush's veto of expanding S-CHIP is on the agenda for today.

The struggling economy gives Democratic lawmakers another weapon in their effort to expand a popular children's health insurance program. In the end, however, they appear to have made little headway in overcoming a presidential veto.

In December, President Bush for a second time vetoed a bill that would more than double spending on the State Children's Health Program. Bush said the bill would encourage too many families to replace private insurance with government-subsidized health coverage. On Wednesday, the House was voting on whether to override that veto.

In recent days, Democratic lawmakers have stressed that more families will need to rely on SCHIP this year if unemployment increases.

"In a slowing economy, strengthening SCHIP and providing health care to 10 million children is sound policy, and overriding the president's veto is more critical than ever," said Nadeam Elshami, spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

The bill's $35 billion spending increase for SCHIP over five years would extend health coverage to an additional 4 million children -- up from the 6 million children the program currently covers. Lawmakers sent the president a similar bill in October, which he vetoed. Democratic leaders fell 13 votes short in their previous override effort.

I discussed this issue in my interview with State Rep. Garnet Coleman, who explains how the federal action affects what happens in Texas. I don't expect this override attempt to go any differently than previous ones, but it's still a fight worth re-fighting. Daily Kos has more on this, while KUHF has a story on the statewide and local CHIP enrollment levels.

The CPPP explains (again!) why Phil King's sales tax swap is a bad idea

Since State Rep. Phil King has once again raised the awful idea of massively hiking sales taxes in order to reduce property taxes, the CPPP has once again swung into action to explain why it's so dumb (PDF) to do this.

Public education is the foundation of our democracy and the engine of our economy. Texans have a collective responsibility to ensure that public education is adequately supported. This responsibility needs to be fairly distributed among Texas families in a way that supports economic growth. Recently, some have proposed that Texas replace local school property taxes by increasing the rate of the state sales tax or expanding the sales tax to more goods and services. Such a tax swap would be a bad deal for businesses, families, and public education. 1) The swap would make Texas businesses less competitive because the higher sales tax would raise the cost of Texas goods and services. 2) Taxes on most Texas families--including middle-class families--would actually go up. Only the wealthiest families would see a tax reduction. 3) At the same time, public education would be hurt. Schools would have one source of revenue, sales, which is less stable than property. With the state paying all the bills, more decisions would be made in Austin, and the link between local taxpayers and public schools would be broken. In addition, local communities could no longer supplement the basic education provided by the state.

Texans need to ask what problem we are trying to fix? Are property taxes too high? Even if Texas eliminated school property taxes, Texas would still have to raise the same amount of tax dollars. Are we worried that some residents aren't paying their fair share? In fact, everybody pays the property tax either as owners or as renters (with the tax reflected in the rent). Are we worried that property taxes discourage homeownership? Texas already has laws on the books to ensure that property taxes do not undermine homeownership. Are we worried that property taxes don't corresond to our ability to pay? Generally this is not true, but for those families for which it is true, most states address the problem through a tailored tax break called a circuitbreaker. Texas could provide a circuitbreaker too. As we discuss in this paper, trading property taxes for sales taxes does not solve any real problems, but it does create some.

Read the whole thing and remember that in the end, the overall tax level won't be reduced under this scheme, it will be redistributed. And unless you've got an expensive house, you will be one of the 90% or so of Texans who will be on the losing end of that redistribution. On top of all that, as Burka points out, this would be devastating to the public schools. Which, as he also notes, is the whole point of King's plan. Link via Eye on Williamson.

HHSC Employee back in the blogging saddle

I got word of this last week but didn't get a chance to mention it - Ramblings of an HHSC Employee is being updated again by our intrepid and anonymous employee of the "food stamp" office in Texas. Just in time, too, given stories like this. Take a look and remind yourself why privatization is not now and has never been all that.

And in other news, Governor Perry's property tax cut claims are still phony

Much as I like to see Governor Perry and his malarkey about the property tax cuts get smacked down, I rather wish there weren't so much space given in the story to those who seem to see tax cuts as an entitlement for themselves. As I see it, the reason we're in such a fix over paying for education and other necessary services is because of whiners like Michael Kubosh and Paul Bettencourt and the outsized influence they have on the discourse. So I'm just going to skip over their palaver and get to the important parts of the article, which follow after that.

Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, said the tax plan didn't solve the school finance problems and didn't raise enough money to meet the state's growing needs.

"I'm not sure anybody (in the Legislature) believed the $2,000 figure, certainly nobody who had seen the math," Whitmire said. "The bottom line is we have a broken tax system. We're just not keeping up with our growth."

[...]

[T]he amount of savings that Perry touted won't come to average homeowners because the governor's claim was based on home sales prices, which tend to be higher than actual taxable values. The calculation also did not account for ever-rising property values or school bond issues, which are repaid by a part of the tax rate unaffected by the new caps.

Perry's TV ad clarified the $2,000 was money taxpayers would save over three years; the radio spots had no such caveat.

Sorry, I have to interrupt here for a second before I get to the best part. "Ever-rising property values"? Do the words "subprime mortgage crisis" (or if you prefer, Big Shitpile) mean anything to you? It's true that property values have generally increased around here. Anyone who thinks that's true for everyone or forever needs to re-enroll in Econ 101.

Back to the best bit:

Homeowners with more expensive homes will save most.

An $800,000 home in the Cypress-Fairbanks school district, for example, would have produced a tax savings of about $5,083 over the last two years.

The legislative response to the Supreme Court order for a new education finance plan was not about adequately funding schools, said state Rep. Scott Hochberg, D-Houston, a school finance expert.

"It was about reducing property taxes, primarily for the owners of the most expensive homes," Hochberg said.

Hochberg, Bettencourt and other tax experts predict a continuing saga because school funding formulas benefit the state when property values go up. Local taxpayers owe more to their schools, but the state then sends them less state money for public education.

"It's not just Alamo Heights and Spring Branch and Highland Park in Dallas. It's every school district," Bettencourt said.

Local governments typically use increased property values to cover inflation "so they can at least stay even, but for school districts, if their values go up, they don't get the benefit of that," Hochberg said. "That benefit accrues to the state. Instead of putting that money into local school district budgets, we send that directly back to tax relief, which means the districts then have to turn around and raise the tax rate, and there goes the savings.

"The governor takes credit for tax relief while pushing the true costs back into the hands of the local school board members, who now have to take the blame for raising taxes just to stay even," Hochberg said.

I couldn't have said it better myself. There really isn't anything else in that story you need to read.

Cornyn defends his anti-CHIP votes

Nice try.

U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, predicting voters will see through Democrats' bid to turn health coverage for working-poor children into a "political football," on Tuesday defended his August and September votes against a proposed expansion of the Children's Health Insurance Program.

Mr. Cornyn said the legislation went too far, cost too much and would place some children who have private insurance onto government rolls.

"There is a question of fiscal responsibility and of how much we want to grow the size of the federal role when it comes to health care," Mr. Cornyn said after visiting a privately run call center for social program signups in Austin.

Mr. Cornyn, a Republican, faces re-election next year. Two Democrats who want to unseat him criticized his call center tour and photo-op, which they said were designed to conceal mean-spirited votes.

"He can use all the semantics and misdirection he wants. At the end of the day, he had an opportunity to vote for working families' children and he chose not to," said state Rep. Rick Noriega, D-Houston.

Pretty much. And please, let's not forget that along the way, Cornyn was patently dishonest throughout the proceedings. It's all he's got at this point.

Mr. Cornyn opposed the bill, though Texas' other GOP senator, Kay Bailey Hutchison, backed it.

One infers from this that Cornyn thinks his senior colleague supports fiscal irresponsibility. Nice to know.

The anti-business tax sentiment

The new business tax won't be collected for another six months, but there's already a media campaign being waged against it.

Radio ads in San Antonio, Austin, Dallas and Houston draw on tidal waves and scary movies to make a point about something they paint as just as frightening: Texas' new business tax.

"It's the difference between a tiny drop and a tidal wave. Because of the new Texas Margins Tax, small-business owners may see a slight drop in property taxes, but their business tax will increase up to 1,000 percent," says the script for one of the ads by the National Federation of Independent Business.

A second ad begins, " 'Tax Rage in Texas.' It's not a scary movie. It's a scary development for small-business owners across our state. Many small-business owners are seeing their tax bill increase 200, 400, even 1,000 percent!"

The campaign is a membership drive for the small-business group, but it's also an effort to urge legislative changes to the expanded business tax part of a package that also lowered local school property tax rates, and to make the tax a top 2008 campaign issue.

"I don't know how on Earth someone can run for election saying, 'Hey, you're not making money. Give the state a little extra money,' " said Will Newton, executive director of the National Federation of Independent Business/Texas.

[...]

The new business tax, which replaced the franchise tax, is based on gross receipts -- either 1 percent or half a percent, depending on the type of business -- with deductions for cost of goods sold or employee benefits.

Backers say the new tax is fairer, bringing businesses into the system that weren't paying. They say companies that will owe higher business taxes must also look at whether that's offset by lower local school tax rates. They cite adjustments made this year meant to benefit smaller businesses.

"The goal ... is to keep Texas business-friendly," said Rep. Jim Keffer, R-Eastland, chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee. "We certainly in the Legislature strove to protect small business."

Keffer bristles at the ads, contending that NFIB/Texas "did not come and really try to work with us on any of this. Pretty much they were against the whole process."

Whatever. Look, the new business tax isn't the end of the rainbow. It's got to be a better idea than the pointless, almost-never-collected franchise tax, but it was designed for a purpose it couldn't ever fulfill, which was the ridiculous property tax cut. I can't say it's good public policy, because our entire outdated, jerryrigged tax structure in this state is bad public policy. It may be the best we can do given that a complete overhaul of the system isn't in the cards, but if so it'll be more by accident than design. Sooner or later, something is going to give, and when it does it won't be pretty.

None of this is to say that I have any sympathy for NFIB/Texas and its whining. They're not interested in solving problems, they just want to not be taxed. The line for that one forms to the left, fellas.

Know your HHSC contractors

Want to know who's actually providing services to the HHSC these days? The CPPP is keeping track.

Earlier this month, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission released two draft Request for Proposals related to the development and operation of an integrated eligibility system for Food Stamps, Medicaid, TANF, and CHIP. Similar to the now defunct "TAA" contract with Accenture, the RFPs ask vendors to submit their proposals for operating a system of call centers to provide "eligibility support services" for Food Stamps, Medicaid, and TANF; determine eligibility for CHIP-only cases; and provide document processing services through a centralized mail center. CPPP has prepared a contracting matrix that describes these and other major contracting opportunities with HHSC related to the delivery of health and human services.

I hope someone with more free time than I will keep an eye on the "Twogether in Texas Healthy Marriage Program", a/k/a the Warren Chisum Marriage Tax, if for no better reason than to see if one of our local adult establishments takes the suggested initiative.

TIERS: Still bad

Another audit, another bad report for the Texas Integrated Eligibility Redesign System, a/k/a TIERS.

Auditors didn't find any significant errors in how eligibility was determined and benefits were calculated in the cases they studied.

But, they concluded, the Health and Human Services Commission "will need significant additional processing capacity and storage to support a statewide rollout of TIERS," including the addition of the Children's Health Insurance Program, scheduled for March.

CHIP will add about 325,000 active and 650,000 inactive clients to the system, the report said.

It also criticized a "poor architectural design" that made the computer system cumbersome to use and hindered TIERS' ability to process and maintain the integrity of data. It also said DHS should consider streamlining its application process for public assistance, including the adoption of a shorter application form.

[...]

According to the new audit, the TIERS application/database was down for more than 27 business hours in July during the contract transition period. DHS said the down time was unusual and had been reduced to only 19 minutes in September.

The auditor estimated that TIERS will need at least 230 additional computer processors and an unknown amount of additional storage for a statewide rollout of the system.

DHS spokeswoman Stephanie Goodman said more than $2 million already has been budgeted for additional hardware. She said the addition of CHIP to the system will represent a major step in taking the system statewide.

But she said she didn't know when the process will be completed because federal approval will be required for some programs.

She said TIERS already serves about 12 percent of the state's health and human services caseload.

"It already has more cases than many other states have total," she said.

All things considered, this report isn't as bad as others have been for TIERS. It's only taken eight years to get to the "all things considered" point, of course. See here, here, and here for earlier installments in the TIERS saga.

Lawmakers want agency ad dollars audited

The TxDOT advertising blitz has drawn some scrutiny from state lawmakers.

"My concern is that Texas agencies, including TxDOT (the Texas Department of Transportation), have exceeded the proper role of state government and, potentially, their legal authority provided by state law," Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, said in a letter this week asking Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst to assign a Senate committee to study the matter. His request followed one by Rep. Ken Paxton, R-McKinney, to House Speaker Tom Craddick.

"We (lawmakers) are potentially curtailing their (TxDOT's) ability to do tollways and maybe push forward the Trans-Texas Corridor," Paxton said. "It appears that now they are trying to lobby the public to be favorable towards these particular issues, and I'm not sure that's a really good use of taxpayer money."

TxDOT has said the Keep Texas Moving campaign is within its legal authority and represents a response to demands from lawmakers and the public for more information.

"We will not solve the transportation challenges facing Texas without public involvement and public input," said agency spokesman Randall Dillard.

Paxton said when he learned of the TxDOT campaign, estimated to cost $7 million to $9 million in highway funds, "I thought, 'Wow, I wonder how many other agencies are doing this, and how much of our taxpayer money is being spent on it?' "

[...]

The comptroller's records showed all state agencies together spent $97.8 million in state and federal funds in fiscal year 2006 and $93.3 million in fiscal year 2007 in those three categories pertinent to marketing -- advertising, promotional items and publications.

Such expenditures aren't precise reflections of promotional efforts, however. The advertising category, for example, includes such items as job ads and legal notices. At the same time, other spending on promotional campaigns may be overlooked if agencies code it accurately, but broadly as "professional services" rather than ads.

I think the concerns raised here by Sen. Patrick and Rep. Paxton are legitimate, and I hope there's some follow-through on them. I think agencies should be given some leeway because there are legitimate reasons to spend money in this fashion, but some kind of guidelines, even subjective ones, should be used. Rep. Paxton has correctly framed the problem with what TxDOT is doing, and I hope some appropriate action is taken as a result.

KBH weasels on S-CHIP

I'm not surprised.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, who last month was the highest-ranking Republican to support a Democratic bill to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program, flipped her stance Wednesday on a key procedural vote.

The Texan essentially voted to filibuster the legislation, reversing the stance she took last month when Congress passed a $35 billion expansion of health insurance coverage for lower-income children that President Bush promptly vetoed.

Despite the switch by Hutchison and Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., the bill cleared the 60-vote hurdle required to survive and is slated for a final vote later this week.

[...]

Hutchison, a longtime defender of the SCHIP program, said Wednesday that she cast her vote in protest of the Democrats' refusal to hash out a deal with the White House. She made it clear, though, that she will support the legislation when it comes to a final vote.

"Regrettably, today's procedural vote in the Senate was on SCHIP legislation that was passed by the House without any collaboration with the president," she said. "Some in Congress have chosen to play politics with this issue, rather than sit down and negotiate a bipartisan compromise."

Hutchison urged Democratic leaders to "abandon this political gamesmanship and work toward a bill the president will sign."

But it was a Senate Republican leader, Trent Lott of Mississippi, who forced the bill to the floor even as Democrats were willing to allow more time for the bill's Democratic and Republican supporters to negotiate.

[...]

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, has parted company with Hutchison over the bill, calling it a step towards socialized medicine. In a floor speech Wednesday, he accused the Democrats of putting politics over policy and refusing to negotiate.

"This bill has become just another political football in a game that's been raging for months," he said.

Cornyn, who is up for re-election next year, has seen his opposition to the SCHIP bill used against him by his would-be Democratic rival, state Rep. Rick Noriega, and other Democrats.

Hutchison, in contrast, has been lauded for her years-long support of the children's health program and her fight to retain funding that the state of Texas declined to spend on the program in earlier years.

The Austin-based Center for Public Policy Priorities, which is pressing for the $35 billion expansion, remains confident of Hutchison's support for the program notwithstanding her vote Wednesday, said associate director Anne Dunkelberg.

"It's an understandable sort of signal of her loyalty to her party and her desire to see a compromise have time to be developed," Dunkelberg said.

This is just a little bit of cover for our junior Senator. He's gotten pilloried in the editorial pages for his heartless and dishonest posturing on S-CHIP, with Big Sister Kay being held up as the good example. So she stepped out on a vote where it didn't matter so she could say a few meaningless words about "negotiating with the White House", which everybody in the world by now understands to mean "do exactly what the White House wants and pretend to like it", so that Junior knows she's got his back. We all clear on this now? Good.

Community college funding finally fixed

The great community college funding fiasco has finally come to a resolution.

Texas community colleges will get $154 million in vetoed money after all under a deal struck by top state leaders including Gov. Rick Perry, who had deleted the money from the state budget in a funding dispute with the schools.

The GOP leaders -- Perry, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and House Speaker Tom Craddick -- called on the colleges in light of Tuesday's agreement to rescind any approved or planned tuition, fee or tax increases tied to the veto.

Dewhurst, calling community colleges the "backbone" of higher education, said it was crucial "that we restore the vetoed funds and ensure higher education in Texas remains affordable and accessible to anyone who wants it, without putting any extra financial burden on students or taxpayers."

Under the deal, the funding would be transferred to colleges from unspecified areas of the $151.9 billion, two-year state budget. Any money removed from another appropriation would be restored when the Legislature next meets in regular session in January 2009.

Community colleges applauded the decision but said the larger issue of sufficient overall funding still must be addressed.

As noted in my earlier post, the monies will be cobbled together from various existing appropriations. At least now we know that those funds will then be restored to the unwitting and possibly unwilling donors when the Lege gets back together.

The deal mediates a dispute between Perry and the colleges on how much the state should pay for health benefits for community college employees.

Perry, who in vetoing the money contended community colleges submitted false appropriation requests, said the state only should pay such benefits for employees whose salaries also are state-paid.

Community colleges, which denied Perry's charge, sought state benefit funding for employees who were eligible for state salaries even if they were paid from other sources.

Paul Burka demonstrated the flaws in Perry's logic after the veto.

Millicent Valek, board chair of the Texas Association of Community Colleges and president of Brazosport College, said restoration of the funding "means community colleges in Texas can continue to offer opportunities and access to thousands of Texans each day."

Valek also said, however, that the compromise is "a Band-Aid fix." She said, "We still have a lot of work ahead" to fix the larger issues of funding for community colleges.

Obviously, it's not just community colleges that have such issues. But at least this unnecessary crisis, for which Governor Perry is solely responsible, has been averted for now. Small favors and all that.

CHIP veto upheld

No surprise at all. Thankfully, this won't be the last we hear of this. Which means there will be more opportunities for the holdout Republicans to show how utterly out of touch they are. I'd be gleeful if it weren't for the millions of still-uninsured children that this all means. But at least we're all clear on who's insisting they stay that way.

S-CHIP day

In addition to being U-Line Day, today is also S-CHIP day, as the House and Senate vote to override President Bush's veto. In anticipation of that, the CPPP has some reading for you.

On October 18, Congress will vote on whether to override the President's veto of the bipartisan Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007. Anticipating the vote, America is engaged in a major public debate about children's health insurance. The Texas Congressional Delegation is split. Senator Hutchison and 12 Texas representatives voted for the bipartisan bill. Senator Cornyn and 18 Texas representatives voted against the bipartisan bill. Senator Cornyn is a co-sponsor of an alternative called McConnell-Lott. This paper analyzes how the bipartisan bill would help our state and how the alternative would hurt. Based upon this analysis, CPPP urges our Texas congressional delegation to vote to override the President's veto.

Here's the first paper (PDF), entitled "How the Bipartisan CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2007 Helps Texas and How the McConnell-Lott-Cornyn Alternative Hurts Texas", and the second paper (PDF), called "CBO's Estimate of Changes in SCHIP and Medicaid Enrollment of Children". Meanwhile, Eye on Williamson fact checks Rep. John Carter, who is clearly standing by his man on this one. Check 'em out, and read on for another press release from CD10 candidate Dan Grant once again urging Rep. Mike McCaul to do the right thing.

Congressional challenger Dan Grant today said his his opponent, incumbent Rep. Mike McCaul, has a critical choice to make this week as the U.S. House prepares to take up a bi-partisan measure that will provide health coverage to 1.5 million uninsured Texas children under the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

"Will Mr. McCaul stand with Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison on the side of Texas kids or with Sen. John Cornyn on the side of Washington politicians?" Grant asked.

Sen. Hutchison has said she will vote to override President George W. Bush's veto of the children's health bill, which passed the U.S. Senate with an overwhelming bi-partisan majority last month. Sen. Cornyn has struggled to explain why he sided with the insurance industry and voted in the minority against the original bill.

A vote to override the President's veto is scheduled for Thursday in the U.S. House, where McCaul also voted against the measure.

Grant said the SCHIP bill will provide health insurance to eligible children of working parents who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but too little to afford private insurance, which costs Texas families an average of $11,000 per year.

KBH to vote for S-CHIP veto override

After being all mean and cynical yesterday, let me now say something nice about Senator Hutchison: She is absolutely doing the right thing regarding S-CHIP. If only some of her fellow Republicans would follow her lead.

U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison said Friday she "of course" will vote to override President Bush's veto of a children's insurance program expansion that she supported.

But Hutchison said she isn't trying to coax members of the Texas delegation in the U.S. House who opposed that version of a Children's Health Insurance Program expansion to do the same, although an override is expected to be more difficult in that chamber.

"I know that many in the House delegation have different constituencies. I was obviously looking at all of Texas," Hutchison said in response to questions.

"And they have concerns that I think are legitimate in many ways that the program expanding too much would cause people to leave their private health insurance, which is not what we want.

"That would weaken our health care system,"Hutchison said.

[...]

"I will, of course, vote to override, because I think that from my standpoint, I did the right thing," Hutchison said, adding that the measure included proper limits, protection for Texas' funding and a way to reach children who still don't have health care.

Well, I'm glad that one of our Senators is "looking at all of Texas". Perhaps next year we can elect another Senator who will do the same.

And just in case you think it's only us cranky Democrats who are urging an override of this veto, get a load of this:

Catholics United will launch a radio advertising campaign targeting ten members of Congress whose opposition to the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) have compromised their pro-life voting records.

The ads, which feature a mother urging her Congressional Representative to support SCHIP, will primarily air on Christian and talk radio stations from Monday Oct. 15 to Wednesday, Oct. 17 as Congress approaches a critical Oct. 18 vote to override President Bush's veto of bipartisan SCHIP legislation.

"Building a true culture of life requires public policies that promote the welfare of the most vulnerable," said Chris Korzen, executive director of Catholics United. "At the heart of the Christian faith is a deep and abiding concern for the need of others. Pro-life Christians who serve in Congress should honor this commitment by supporting health care for poor children."

[...]

The script for the radio commercial reads: "I'm the mother of three children, and I'm pro-life. I believe that protecting the lives our children must be our nation's number one moral priority. That's why I'm concerned that Congressman X says he's pro-life but votes against health care for poor children. That's not pro-life. That's not pro-family. Tell Congressman X to vote for health care for children. Call him today at XXXX, that's XXXXX."

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholic Charities USA, and the Catholic Health Association have all urged Congress and President Bush to support SCHIP.

Sadly, they are not targeting anyone in Texas. Which is too bad, as this is an ad that would resonate in just about every Republican-held district. Link via MyDD.

Coleman to Abbott: File suit over CHIP

State Rep. Garnet Coleman sends a letter to Attorney General Greg Abbott:

I am writing you today to ask you to file or join a lawsuit against the United States Department of Health and Human Services to block a recent Center for Medicaid and State Operations directive that will result in thousands of children losing their health insurance nationwide and handcuff Texas from continuing to reduce the number of uninsured children in our state.

On August 17, the Bush administration issued a directive from the Center for Medicaid and State Operations effectively prohibiting states from covering children in their respective State Children's Health Insurance Programs (SCHIP) at or above 250% of the federal poverty level. I believe the directive violates federal law, which requires a published notice in the Federal Register and an opportunity for public comment on new administrative rules. The Attorneys General of New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Maryland and Washington have filed or joined lawsuits to block enforcement of the directive; according to media reports, the Attorneys General of Arizona, California, New Hampshire and New Mexico have announced they will do the same.

Texas made progress this past legislative session partially restoring cuts made to Texas' CHIP program in 2003, but the Legislature still has a long way to go to fully restoring CHIP and providing access to health coverage for the 1.3 million children in our state who currently do not have health insurance. In addition to violating federal law, the directive from the Bush administration will ultimately handcuff legislators from reducing the number of uninsured children in Texas.

Some background on that lawsuit is here. Note the irony present in this story about how Texas is not at risk just yet of having to throw kids off of CHIP:

State officials said Thursday that the state has sufficient funding from existing federal grants to continue the program for at least a year.

Stephanie Goodman, a spokeswoman for the Health and Human Services Commission, said there is enough money to cover an expected enrollment increase of 135,000 children. The boost in enrollment was authorized by the Legislature this year in a bill designed to reverse cuts made in 2003 when the state faced a budget crisis.

Goodman said eligibility workers are reassuring families that they won't lose CHIP. The situation is different in some other states that have spent all of their federal funds.

The federal government provides more than $2 in matching funds for every dollar the state spends on CHIP, which is designed for children of families who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford private insurance. Texas covers children living in families who earn up to 200 percent of federal poverty guidelines, or $41,300 for a family of four.

About 327,000 Texas children are enrolled now, down from 529,000 in 2002.

Advocates for low-income families said a congressional deadlock could hurt future efforts to cover more uninsured children in Texas by expanding income limits. Such changes would have to be made by the Legislature.

Anne Dunkelberg, associate director of the Center for Public Policy Priorities, said if Texas wants to reach the more than 300,000 children eligible for the program but not enrolled and continue covering pregnant women, it will need to rely on more federal funds in coming years. She said the bill that President Bush vetoed last week would have provided those funds.

We have those extra federal funds now because we kicked thousands of kids off of CHIP in 2003 in our badly misguided attempt to balance the budget. So unlike all those states that were foolish enough to spend the money they were granted to provide health insurance to the maximum number of children and who now face shortfalls thanks to President Bush's veto, we got way ahead of the curve and slashed enrollment years ago, thus giving us enough of a cushion to bring some of the kids back into the fold now that we loosened our own purse strings a bit. How prescient we were.

Elsewhere in CHIP news, Coleman and a group of his House colleagues held a press conference to urge an override of the Bush veto, Bill Kelly wrote about the politics of CHIP in football terms, and CD10 candidate Dan Grant continued his assault on Rep. Mike McCaul for his unwavering refusal to support CHIP. Click on for Grant's press release.

Democratic challenger Dan Grant today asked his opponent, incumbent GOP Congressman Mike McCaul, to explain why he voted against a bi-partisan bill to extend the successful State Children's Health Insurance Program to more than 1.4 million uninsured Texas children and to tell the working parents of those children whether he plans to vote for the measure when it comes up again next week.

The bill, which passed the House with a strong majority despite McCaul's "no" vote, was subsequently vetoed by President George W. Bush. The House is expected to debate a possible override of the presidential veto beginning October 18.

"Texas has the highest rate of uninsured children in the nation," Grant said. "Mr. McCaul's vote against this bipartisan legislation -- and the President's veto of it when it passed anyway -- harmed millions of working parents of uninsured children."

Grant said private health insurance costs Texas families an average of $11,000 per year.

"There's no mystery about what is causing the health care crisis -- ordinary working people don't earn enough to pay for skyrocketing insurance premiums and prescription drugs," Grant said.

Grant has proposed reforms to guarantee affordable health care by requiring open disclosure of all health-related prices and a single national risk pool to leverage down insurance costs.

Abstinence education funding cuts coming

Good.

Some providers of sexual abstinence programs in Texas schools are cutting back their operations because $50 million in federal funds for abstinence promotion quietly expired last week.

Despite an 11th-hour extension of funding until Dec. 31, the effect is still "devastating," said Mike Goss, president of the faith-based, nonprofit Abstinence America program that operates in Houston schools. "It's going to wipe out programs far and wide."

However, the impact in Central Texas classrooms will likely be minimal. And statewide, abstinence will still be taught, though some private agencies may no longer offer the curriculum in some school districts. Goss said he has scaled his program back from 16 Houston area schools to four schools.

States were informed this week they could receive the stop-gap funding if they apply quickly to the federal government. Officials with the Texas Department of State Health Services said they haven't decided whether to do so.

Texas receives the largest share of federal abstinence grants, about $4.7 million a year, through a program known as Title V. The money goes to more than 50 instructional programs, most of them offered by a mini-industry of private groups that contract with various school districts. The programs match every $4 in federal funds with $3 of their own, according to state officials.

The Texas Education Agency requires public high schools to teach abstinence as the "preferred choice" to prevent unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. Each school district decides how and when that instruction will take place, and whether a contractor will provide it.

[...]

Congress enacted the Title V grant program in 1998, but it has recently come under increasing criticism. Eight states, including California, New Jersey and Wisconsin, have rejected the funding, opting instead to put money into comprehensive sex education that allows them to put more emphasis on condoms and other forms of birth control.

If federal abstinence money ends for good in December, supporters may ask the state to step in.

Legislators say it's too soon to tell what will happen. However, it is typically the federal government's job to pay for the programs that it starts, said state Rep. Dawnna Dukes, D-Austin, a member of the House Appropriations Committee on Health and Human Services.

Both she and another committee member, Rep. John Zerwas, R-Fulshear, say they need more hard numbers on the programs' effectiveness.

Zerwas said he supports abstinence-based education.

"But at the end of the day, we hold our agencies accountable and unless we can see some evidence that these types of programs are having this impact for what they're intended to do, it becomes difficult for us as a committee to continue funding them," Zerwas said. "If they're not, I'm willing to accept that as much as anybody else."

There's plenty of evidence, all right, but it's not in the abstinence-ed programs' favor. I look forward to seeing this line item get zeroed out in 2009. Link via State of Mine.

Comptroller blinks in dispute against HCAD

Last month, Comptroller Susan Combs issued a report saying that the Harris County Appraisal District (HCAD) had been undervaluing commercial properties, which in turn was shorting HISD of revenue - see here for some background. Now they're saying maybe not.

In a statement Friday, Combs said she was looking into whether a state law passed earlier this year could change how her office conducts annual property value studies in school districts statewide. The statement was issued by Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector Paul Bettencourt and HCAD Chief Appraiser Jim Robinson, suggesting Combs may be coming around to their view on how properties are to be appraised.

[...]

Bettencourt and Robinson contend the Comptroller's Office has failed to take into account commercial and apartment property appraisals that have been lowered through successful tax protests by the owners.

For example, last year HCAD originally appraised downtown's Three Allen Center, 333 Clay, at $170 million. The owners protested and an appraisal review board agreed, lowering the property's value to $123 million. The Comptroller's Office, however, said the property had a value of $128 million.

In another instance, HCAD assessed the Fantome Tower, at 1100 Louisiana, at $190 million last year. An appraisal review board lowered that to $140 million. But the agency put the building's value at $253 million.

[...]

Robinson said the Comptroller's Office may not find that commercial property in HISD is undervalued if it takes into account those properties that had their appraisals lowered through the protest process.

To bolster their case, Bettencourt and Robinson cite a law passed this summer that says the comptroller should factor those protest victories into its calculations when determining whether a school district's property is being properly appraised.

A spokesman for Combs said the Comptroller's Office will ask the attorney general to confirm that the legislative intent of the bill's author, Rep. John Otto, R-Dayton, was to require the comptroller to give more weight to the outcome of protest hearings.

Reading Otto's bill in this way "could have statewide impact," spokesman Allen Spelce said.

There are a couple of things about this that puzzle me. First, looking at the text of the Otto bill, which appears to be HB3492, we see that

The change in law made by this Act applies only to the annual study conducted under Section 403.302, Government Code, as amended by this Act, to determine taxable value for a tax year that begins on or after January 1, 2007. The annual study to determine taxable value for a tax year that begins before that date is covered by the law in effect immediately before the effective date of this Act, and the prior law is continued in effect for that purpose.

If that's the case, then how are assessments made in 2006 relevant? I don't see how the legislative intent is that this is how it should have been done all along. It seems clear to me that this is a change for 2007 going forward.

The cited examples of disputes between HCAD and the Comptroller confuse me as well. In two of these cases, HCAD's initial assessment was considerably higher than both the ARB-lowered amount and the Comptroller's amount. In the third case, the Comptroller's number is 50% higher than the initial value, and double the ARB value. What this says to me more than anything is not that HCAD is necessarily lowballing things, but that the general methodology being used by both groups is not nearly as accurate as it should be. How can you trust something that so often misses by that much? I say this is another argument in favor of sales price disclosure legislation. Let's take some of the guesswork out, and maybe we won't have these problems.

We'll see what happens. If the Comptroller is waiting for an AG opinion, then we won't know for six months or so. If Bettencourt's argument carries the day, then as the story notes this will have an impact statewide, which will make the fight over school finance in 2009 that much more contentious. Stay tuned.

Kay Granger targeted for S-CHIP override vote

The following is excerpted from an Americans United for Change press release, which is part of a big national effort to put pressure on various Congressional Republicans to vote for an veto override on S-CHIP. They're targeting Rep. Kay Granger here in Texas, which struck me as a bit odd at first as many of the other names on their list are swing-seat holders. I'd have aimed at Mike McCaul, John Carter, or Pete Sessions in the first round if that were the criteria. I'm reminded that Granger is third in the GOP's leadership structure, and she has been mentioned in some circles as a Vice Presidential possibility (I have a hard time seeing that, but stranger things have happened), so as far as that goes, it makes sense. From the release:

On the heels of President Bush's shameful veto this week of the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act - meaningful legislation to provide health coverage for nearly 10 million kids - several leading groups including AFL-CIO, AFSCME, SEIU, MoveOn.org, Americans United for Change, USAction, TrueMajority announced a major, multi-million dollar "Campaign to Save Children's Healthcare" to convince enough member of Congress to vote to override the President's veto. The effort includes a national television ad campaign, targeted TV ads in key Republican U.S. House districts, and a massive online and grassroots mobilization blitz.

The Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act would reauthorize the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) for 6.6 million kids and provide coverage to nearly 4 million more low-income children. The bill passed the U.S. House on September 25, by a 265 to 159 vote -- approximately 290 votes are needed to over-ride a veto - and passed in the U.S. Senate on September 27th with a 67-29 veto-proof majority. The President vetoed the legislation on October 3rd, and the U.S. House is expected to hold a vote to override the veto on October 18th. A new Washington Post-ABC News poll reveals 72 percent of Americans support the Democrats' proposed $35 billion for children's health care, including 61% of Republicans.

With support from AFSCME, SEIU and MoveOn.org -- Americans United for Change will launch a significant-six figure national TV ad starting on Monday called "Abby" that will run through the expected October 18th vote. You may view "Abby" here:

http://www.americansunitedforchange.org/blog/entries/abby/

There's a great roundup of editorials around the nation panning the veto and calling for an override at The Gavel. Far as I'm concerned, the more pressure being put on the recalcitrants, the better. Let's keep it that way.

CPPP statement to Cornyn on S-CHIP

The CPPP has issued the following statement to John Cornyn regarding his SCHIP claims:

In the debate over reauthorizing the Children's Health Insurance Program, Senator Cornyn is talking about plans that did not pass Congress. He is touting the so-called Kids First Act that he supported at $9 billion and he is disparaging the original House plan and the original Senate plan. What Texans need to evaluate is the bipartisan bill for $35 billion that did pass, which the President vetoed. With a vote to override the veto coming up, the bipartisan bill is the plan that is on the table. It would cover almost 4 million more children.

Texas needs the bipartisan bill. The Legislature is trying to add back 200,000 children after the terrible 2003 cuts and provide new prenatal care. Thanks to the hard negotiation of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, who voted for the bipartisan bill, it brings Texas more money and we are not penalized in any way.

Senator Cornyn has raised several concerns, but those concerns are addressed in the bipartisan bill. The bill targets only low-income children. The bill's new cap of 300% FPL is just under $62,000 gross pre-tax income (not net income) for a family of 4. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 84% of the children gaining coverage under the bill are either on the program now (but without the new money would have to be cut from the program for lack of funding) or are eligible now but not enrolled. Only 600,000 of the 3.8 million children gaining coverage under the bill are not currently eligible and would become eligible due to expansions.

The bill cuts out adults. The bill prohibits new waivers to cover parents under CHIP. States that have received waivers in the past to cover low-income parents under CHIP will be permitted to transition parents to a separate block grant with a lower federal match. And the bill retains the current law prohibition of waivers to allow coverage for childless adults. States that were given waivers in the past to cover childless adults will have these waivers terminated after a one-year period.

Senator Cornyn persists in saying that the Kids First Act (the McConnell-Lott amendment) would have covered an additional 1.3 million children. This is inaccurate. Senator Cornyn is misreading the Congressional Budget Office tables that scored the amendment. We brought this error to his attention by a letter e-mailed to him on August 1, but he continues to make this inaccurate claim. We are posting both our original letter to him and the original CBO Table. His plan would have barely covered current enrollment.

If the number of uninsured children grows this year at the same rate as last year, nearly 2,000 additional children will become uninsured every day. What we need are solutions, not rhetoric. As the Senator admits, CHIP is a great program for the kids who have it. It would also be great for the kids who don't. We urge Senator Cornyn and the other members of the Texas Congressional delegation who voted against the bipartisan bill to turn around and join the fight for children and for our future.

The statement is here, and their earlier letter to Cornyn is here (both are PDFs). Note that every Democratic member of the Texas delegation voted for S-CHIP (except for Rep. Eddie Berniece Johnson, who did not vote) and every Republican member voted against it (except Rep. Ted Poe, who also did not vote). Rick Casey reminds them all why supporting CHIP is as good for one's electoral health as it is for the children.

Will the S-CHIP veto be overridden?

Having now been vetoed, the next phase in the fight over S-CHIP is the override attempt.

"Congress will fight hard to override President Bush's heartless veto," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada vowed.

Republican leaders expressed confidence they have enough votes to make the veto stick in the House, and not a single senior Democrat disputed them. A two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress is required to override a veto.

I have a hard time seeing how the Dems can get enough Republicans to change their minds. There's always going to be some ideological opposition, and there's always going to be some resistance to the idea of overriding a President of your own party, even an unpopular one. I expect there to be a full-court press, and we already know that a few Dems who didn't cast a vote in favor will come around, but I think it will fall short. Which means we'll go through all this again, not that that's a bad thing. Who's Playin' has a Texas blog roundup on S-CHIP, while Jon Swift has an appropriate reaction to it all.

UPDATE: Kos has a good roundup, too.

S-CHIP vetoed

As expected.

President Bush, in a confrontation with Congress, today vetoed a bipartisan bill that would have dramatically expanded children's health insurance.

It was only the fourth veto of Bush's presidency, and one that some Republicans feared could carry steep risks for their party in next year's elections. The Senate approved the bill with enough votes to override the veto, but the margin in the House fell short of the required number.

The White House sought as little attention as possible, with the president wielding his veto behind closed doors without any fanfare or news coverage.

That's a normal response when one does something one is ashamed of, is it not?

Eighteen Republicans joined Democrats in the Senate, enough to override Bush's veto. But this was not the case in the House, where despite sizable Republican support, supporters of the bill are about two dozen votes short of a successful override.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said Democrats were imploring 15 House Republicans to switch positions but had received no agreements so far.

For what it's worth, they've picked up one more Democrat, and they're working on some vulnerable Republicans. I can't say I hold out much hope, but what else can you do?

Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott, R-Miss., said Congress should be able to reach a compromise with Bush once he vetoes the bill. "We should not allow it to be expanded to higher and higher income levels, and to adults. This is about poor children," he said. "But we can work it out."

If Sen. Lott really feels that way, his naievete about how the Bush White House operates is almost touching. The President isn't vetoing this because of operational concerns. He's vetoing it because he doesn't like CHIP, and thinks it's the foot in the door to socialized medicine, or whatever the anti-healthcare reform catchphrase is these days. I don't see any common ground there upon which to reach a compromise. How do you negotiate with someone whose mantra is "Why don't you save yourself some time and see it my way?"

The only viable option is an override. Failing that, I hope the Democrats take Chuck Grassley's advice. That's pretty much all there is to it.

UPDATE: Seventy-two percent of people polled support the S-CHIP bill that Bush just vetoed. Burka makes the same point about Bush being ashamed of his veto. BOR points out the near unanimity of Texas Republicans' opposition to S-CHIP.

Senate passes S-CHIP

Off to the President.

The U.S. Senate Thursday gave final legislative approval to the expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

President George W. Bush has promised to veto the measure, which would add $35 billion to the program, generally referred to as S-CHIP, during the next five years.

The bill passed the Senate by 67 to 29, enough to override a veto, The Washington Post reported. A number of Republicans crossed party lines to vote with the Democratic majority.

The House approved the legislation Tuesday, but by a smaller margin, 265 to 159.

Much of the Republican support Thursday came from legislators who face strong re-election challenges next year. Even some conservatives, like Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kansas., jumped ship and asked Bush to reconsider his veto threat.

"Anyone who votes in lock step with the president and against children's health, they are going to hear about it back home," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., chairman of his party's congressional campaign committee.

The earlier vote to suspend debate was 69-30 in favor, so there may be even a little more support for S-CHIP in the Senate than that vote suggests. I don't know if they'll go whole hog and override the veto, but they might.

Here's a roll call of the vote. Do I need to tell you how John Cornyn voted? At least Kay Bailey Hutchison did the right thing. I'll let Kansas Sen. Pat Roberts, nobody's idea of a liberal, address the issue of the upcoming veto:

"The administration is threatening to veto this bill because of 'excessive spending' and their belief that this bill is a step toward federalization of healthcare," said Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), a supporter of the plan. "I am not for excessive spending and strongly oppose the federalization of healthcare. And if the administration's concerns with this bill were accurate, I would support a veto. But, bluntly put, they are not."

And John Cornyn is right there with them. He'll be there with them till the bitter end. For more on this folly, see the EPI's analysis of why CHIP is needed.

S-CHIP bill passes the House, but not by enough

Close, but no cigar.

The House voted Tuesday to expand health insurance for children, but the Democratic-led victory may prove short-lived because the margin was too small to override President Bush's promised veto.

Embarking on a health care debate likely to animate the 2008 elections, the House voted 265-159 to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, by $35 billion over five years. Bush says he will veto the bill because of its cost, its reliance on a tobacco tax increase and its potential for replacing private insurance with government grants.

SCHIP is a state-federal program that provides coverage for 6.6 million children from families that live above the poverty level but have trouble affording health insurance. The proposed expansion, backed by most governors and many health-advocacy groups, would add 4 million children to the rolls.

The bill drew support from 45 House Republicans, many of them moderates who do not want to be depicted as indifferent to low-income children's health needs when they seek re-election next year. But most Republicans, under pressure from the White House and party leaders, sided with Bush, a move that Democrats see as a political blunder.

And if Democrats are smart about this (sadly, not exactly a sure thing), they'll listen to the advice of Iowa Republican Senator Chuck Grassley:

Grassley said if he were the Democrats, he would send the SCHIP expansion to a vote every three months, along with campaign advertisements accusing Republicans of abandoning children. That way, pressure would mount either on Bush to sign the bill or on House Republicans to override the veto.

From your lips to Reid and Pelosi's ears, dude. Of course, this is the approach they should have taken with getting the troops out of Iraq, and we know how that turned out. So let's just say I'm not holding my breath on this one. (Link via Steve Benen.)

Eight Democrats opposed the bill. Some, from tobacco-growing districts, object to raising the federal cigarette tax to $1 a pack, a 61-cent increase. Some Hispanic members complained that the bill would make legal immigrant children wait five years to qualify for SCHIP.

Here's the roll call, nicely broken down by party and state. The naysaying Dems:

Kathy Castor (FL)
Jim Marshall (GA)
Baron Hill (IN)
Gene Taylor (MS)
Bob Etheridge (NC)
Mike McIntyre (NC)
Dennis Kucinich (OH)
Dan Boren (OK)

I see the tobacco state connection, but I don't see any Hispanics in there, so I think that paragraph could have used some better editing. Can anyone explain what Dennis Kucinich was doing? I can't explain that vote.

Next up is President Bush's inevitable veto, followed (one hopes) by the Democrats taking Chuck Grassley's advice. Stay tuned.

UPDATE: The Observer reminds me that President Bush has a long-held antipathy to CHIP. Which if nothing else means that the Grassley Gambit can go on for as long as the Republicans want it to.

S-CHIP vote in the House today

The battle over S-CHIP will be re-joined today as the House takes up the a compromise bill that was agreed upon last Friday. An earlier version of that bill, HR 976, passed with 68 votes in the Senate last month, which is enough to override a Presidential veto. The House doesn't currently have enough votes for that, but you can bet your paycheck that a whole lot of whipping is going on right now. Bill Scher lays out the dynamics of the fight, and there's more information about the compromise bill here.

You can, of course, help with this by calling your member of Congress and urging him or her to support this bill. Some Texas Republicans are thought to be persuadable, so if anyone out there has Louie Gohmert, Kenny Marchant, Mike McCaul, or Lamar Smith as their representative, please consider giving the House switchboard a call at (202) 224-3121 and telling them to vote in favor of the bill. Alas, there are still some Democrats who, for reasons unknown to me, need to be brought in line. Every Democratic "No" vote makes it that much easier for this to die. The bill can be passed with a few Dem dissenters, but it can't become law over President Bush's avowed veto without a united front. Those of you with any connections to the following, you know what to do:

Dan Boren (OK)
Jim Cooper (TN)
Joe Donnelly (IN)
Brad Ellsworth (IN)
Baron Hill (IN)
Bob Etheridge (NC)
Mike McIntyre (NC)
Heath Shuler (NC)
Jim Marshall (GA)
Gene Taylor (MS)

A total of 290 votes in the House are needed. If we get 280 or so, and some of these are left on the table, all I can say is I hope there will be consequences. There's no valid reason for a Democrat to oppose S-CHIP.

Finally, Rep. Garnet Coleman, one of the biggest boosters of CHIP in the state legislature, has an op-ed on S-CHIP in today's Chron. I'm reprinting it beneath the fold for posterity.

Stop Bush from chipping away at children's care President hasn't learned from hard Texas experience

By STATE REP. GARNET F. COLEMAN

One of the most telling measures of our values and compassion -- as individuals, as a state and as a nation -- is our commitment to afford every family the opportunity to raise a healthy child. As an economic and moral issue, it's a commitment that should transcend political party and ideology, but the future of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is subject to foolish political obstruction by the Bush administration.

After difficult legislative battles in the 1990s, Texas was making great progress with our CHIP program before 2003, when the new partisan Republican legislative leadership enacted policies that caused more than 200,000 Texas children to lose their health insurance. Those legislative changes were so damaging that they played a role in Texas House Speaker Tom Craddick's team losing seats in the 2006 elections. This year the Texas Legislature voted to roll back some of the restrictions put in place in 2003.

Now the debate has moved to Washington, D.C., where President Bush has implemented rules that would cut off more children's health care and has vowed to veto a reauthorization of SCHIP legislation that would give states the ability to offer health care coverage for more than 3 million uninsured children. Instead of adopting the Texas success story from the 1990s, President Bush and his fellow congressional ideologues seem intent on importing Texas' 2003 failures to Washington.

In 1999, I wrote the law that established CHIP in Texas. We designed CHIP as a public policy that would fulfill the promise of affordable access to health coverage for children from working families who can't afford it. Unfortunately, for the past four years, partisan ideologues in the Texas Legislature have enacted policies intentionally designed to deny health care to as many children as possible.

While 200,000 Texas children lost their health coverage, Texas has been forced to return $1 billion of our federal tax dollars to the federal government because barriers were put in place to cut CHIP enrollment. Now our dollars are being spent to help children in other states.

Thankfully, two new laws should improve access to CHIP. According to official estimates by the Legislative Budget Board, approximately 100,000 more Texas children should enroll in CHIP thanks to House Bill 109. Additionally, an amendment I placed on the state budget should eliminate red tape that has denied health coverage to thousands of children.

Even with these changes, 1.4 million children in Texas have no health insurance, and Congress and President Bush should not fail any of these children.

After months of work, Congress is poised to pass SCHIP legislation that would substantially increase funding by $35 billion over the next five years. Funded by an excise tax increase on cigarettes, the proposed Senate bill would cover an additional 3.2 million children in the United States. The U.S. Senate passed the $35 billion SCHIP bill, with the support Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison.

The cost of health insurance goes up every year. SCHIP will lose ground and kids will lose health insurance unless it covers rising health insurance costs. Earlier this summer, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, supported a SCHIP bill that would have barely kept up with the rising costs and was insufficient to add any new children to the program, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

President Bush's proposed plan would likely cover fewer children than the program does today. Even more galling, the administration recently implemented rules that effectively prohibit states like Texas from ever covering many children whose parents earn just enough to make 250 percent of the federal poverty level, but can't afford health insurance.

It's tragic that some Texans in Washington are pushing failed policies from Texas. When Bush was governor, he supported even more restrictive eligibility standards, but the Texas Legislature ultimately forced him to sign a bill that covered more children.

At that time, Gov. Bush cynically remarked to one legislator: "You crammed it down our throats." In 1999 all we did was provide access to health coverage for children whose parents worked but couldn't afford it. Now it's time for Washington, D.C., to do the same, and it's a shame that Congress may have to "cram it down the throats" of leaders who should have learned better by now.

Coleman, a Houston Democrat, is senior member of the Public Health Committee in the Texas House of Representatives.

Those damn call centers again

You might have noticed in that story about the lack of help being given to Hurricane Rita victims that a part of the problem was with getting private contractors geared up to distribute benefits. That's a phenomenon with which we're all sadly familiar around here.

Texas is still struggling with slow processing times for social service benefits and overburdened phone lines as it unwinds a failed privatization contract, health and human services officials said at a public hearing Friday.

They outlined plans for several smaller private contracts in the coming three years in the continued transition to call centers where people apply over the phone for a host of state and federal benefits.

But state employees criticized the plan, saying it would be better to hire more state workers for local offices where people apply for benefits in person.

"We're deeply concerned about plans to continue to contract out" work related to determining whether Texas families qualify for food and medical assistance, said Jerry Wald, a member of the Texas State Employees Union.

[...]

Sheila Badzioch, an HHSC caseworker in Houston, said her office lost a lot of experience when 27 of 40 workers left. The state has hired temporary workers and is converting many to full time, but Badzioch said she has worked many hours of overtime to keep up with her caseload of 990 clients.

The privatization effort was beset by complaints of delays in enrollment and problems getting applications processed.

Maximus, an Accenture subcontractor, temporarily took over the CHIP processing as the state re-balanced the roles between the state and the private sector to ensure that policy decisions were made by trained, experienced state employees.

The state plans to award a contract next May for CHIP processing and call center operations. Future contracts will be awarded for a document processing center, enrollment broker services and computer support.

More background on this is here. I'll say it again, this disastrous experiment will go down as one of the biggest fiascoes of Texas government. It's been a failure in every aspect, and it's left us worse off than we were before.

S-CHIP is back

Congress will try again to pass an S-CHIP bill that can make it past the President, one way or another.

Senate and House negotiators said Sunday that they had agreed on a framework for a compromise bill that would provide health insurance to 4 million children while relaxing some of the limits on eligibility imposed by the Bush administration.

The compromise, which resembles a bill passed by the Senate with bipartisan support, sets the stage for a battle with President Bush, who has denounced similar legislation as a step "down the path to government-run health care for every American."

Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman, said, "The House and the Senate still appear to be far away from legislation that we would find acceptable."

Republicans will come under political pressure to support the compromise. But if the president vetoes it, he will probably have enough votes in the House to sustain his veto.

[...]

At issue is the future of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Supporters of the Senate bill, passed last month by a vote of 68 to 31, had enough votes to overcome a presidential veto. Only five Republicans voted for the House bill when it was approved, 225 to 204.

The compromise is likely to pick up some Republican votes in the House but probably not enough to override a presidential veto, Republicans said.

The compromise would allow states to cover nearly half of the children who are uninsured. About 6.6 million youngsters are now covered.

Congressional action comes in response to urgent appeals from governors of both parties. In a letter to Congress last week, Gov. Sonny Perdue of Georgia, chairman of the Republican Governors Association, and Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, chairwoman of the Democratic Governors Association, said, "For health and moral reasons, Congress must pass and the president must sign a reauthorization of the program by Sept. 30."

Not much to add here. It's the President and some Congressional Republicans against pretty much everyone else, all with millions of uninsured children in the balance. Seems to me this would be an easy choice, but ideology is in the way. Maybe someone should give Arlene Wohlgemuth a call and see how that works out in the end.

Is Rube Goldberg in the house?

At a public hearing on Tuesday, aides to Governor Perry proposed various crazy schemes to restore the $154 million of community college funding that Perry vetoed in June, for which he's been regularly pilloried ever since.

Although lawmakers left unspent more than $2 billion in the two-year budget that starts Sept. 1, Perry and the Legislative Budget Board have limited options in how to spend money between legislative sessions.

To begin with, the senators were surprised to hear that officials would have to take the $154 million from other agencies if they returned the money to the colleges. Unspent money, including the $154 million that was vetoed, is off limits until the Legislature returns in 2009 or Perry calls a special session.

"I've been in some pretty high-level meetings, and that's never been discussed," said Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston. "We've got a hell of a problem."

Sen. Kyle Janek, R-Houston, suggested that the state could return to the so-called accounting gimmicks it boasted of eliminating this year. Specifically, Janek suggested deferring payments one day into the next fiscal year.

Because the money that Perry vetoed came from the second year of the upcoming 2008-09 budget, officials could juggle the state's money until the Legislature returned in January of 2009 to address the issue.

Ken Armbrister, the governor's legislative liaison and a former state senator, testified Tuesday that the money should come from other items in the budget "without a very vocal constituency." He suggested juggling some state debt payments.

Take from those who won't bitch, and give to those who will. Boy, if that isn't a governing philosophy for the 21st century.

I think it's fair to say that there's enough momentum in favor of undoing this shortsighted veto of Perry's that it will likely happen. I mean hell, even Tom Craddick favors it (sort of). But as we've seen before, it may be too late to offset the damage done by the veto, since the community colleges need to plan their budgets now. And even if everything does go perfectly, there's still an underlying issue to be dealt with:

Austin Community College President Stephen B. Kinslow said the larger issue is being lost: The state pays only for 52 percent of the education costs at community colleges -- not the 100 percent state officials promised when the community college system was created in the 1970s -- and the state's share is shrinking.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Well, why should they be any different from the rest of the public education system? PinkDome has more.

Community college leaders to state: Hurry up!

Now that the possibility of a funding veto reversal has been floated, community college leaders hope that the state hurries up and acts, because they have budgets to plan.

[Lt. Gov. David] Dewhurst has indicated that legislative budget leaders could meet as soon as September, but the delay may force many community colleges to make tough financial decisions, such as increases in tuition and property taxes and enrollment cutbacks.

Texas law requires the state's 50 community colleges to submit their annual budgets by Sept. 1.

"We can't wait," said A. Rodney Allbright, president of Alvin Community College. "Our budgets need to be done."

Dewhurst spokesman Rich Parsons said community colleges can be assured of the money, and no immediate action is needed.

But some college leaders are skeptical after Gov. Rick Perry pulled the funding last month, saying the two-year schools overestimated how many employees were entitled to state-paid health benefits. College officials and many lawmakers have said they were blindsided by the veto, which represented 8 percent of the schools' state funds for the next two years.

Hard to blame them for being a bit skittish, isn't it? I wouldn't count any money until the check cleared, either.

And what will happen when these community colleges don't get the money they desperately need? Three guesses:

"The smaller the school, the smaller the tax base, the tougher it is to recover that money," said Myles Shelton, president of Galveston College. "Any institution with less than 6,000 students needs to look at this over two years."

Perry's veto will result in a loss of nearly $1 million for the 2,200-student college. Amid an enrollment slump, Shelton said he is reluctant to increase tuition and fees, leaving a property tax rate increase as the most likely remedy.

Meanwhile, Alvin Community College will open a $20 million health science building without new academic programs, such as physical and occupational therapy. The governor's veto represents a $1.6 million cut, which leaves no money to hire faculty members for the programs, Allbright said.

To close the gap, he said, the college would need to raise tuition by as much as 80 percent, to $54 per semester credit hour, or the tax rate by up to 18 percent.

So the Governor's shortsighted veto may result in higher property taxes for you. Isn't that nice? Remember, we already had the money to pay for this - as the Waco Trib notes, the comptroller had already certified the budget as being balanced. You won't get any of that $154 million that Perry red-lined back - it'll go into a pot of unallocated fund for the next biennium. But you'll pay for it with higher property taxes. Well done, Governor. Trib link via EOW.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to hire Accenture again

Back in June, I noted that the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) was gearing up to hire a replacement for Accenture to do basically what Accenture had been doing so well before we terminated their contract. Judging from this Texas State Employees' Union release, one has to wonder if we've really learned anything from our prior experience.

The Health and Human Services Commission in May issued a Request for Information (RFI) seeking input from vendors about how to resurrect its failed attempt to provide health and human services through call centers. In June, HHSC held a vendor conference to provide more information about the RFI and its call center plans.

HHSC's presentation at the vendor conference made it clear that it has learned little from its disastrous experiment last year to create a privately operated call center-based health and human services eligibility system. In January 2006 HHSC and its contractor Accenture implemented a call center-based eligibility system in Travis and Hays counties.

People applying for food stamps, Medicaid, and public assistance in the Travis and Hays service area were required to do so through the so-called "modernized" call center-based eligibility system. But call centers made access to services more difficult.

[...]

[T]hree months into the experiment HHSC pulled the plug, returned most of the eligibility work being done by Accenture and its subcontractors back to state employees, and postponed further rollout of the call center-based eligibility system.

At the time, HHSC indicated that Accenture needed to work out some technical problems and provide better training to its call center staff. HHSC indicated that when Accenture fixed these problems rollout of the call center eligibility system would resume.

But Accenture never fixed the problems, and there is every reason to believe that the problems are not fixable.

HHSC in March 2007 canceled the Accenture contract, but it appears that HHSC has learned little from last year's experiment. At the vendor conference, an HHSC spokesperson told the gathering that "the [call center] concept is sound."

HHSC assertion that the call center concept "is sound" is based on a number of faulty assumptions including the following:

• Call centers will modernize and improve service delivery


• Call centers will be more convenient for customers


• Customers are clamoring for call centers


• New (Old) business processes will improve access to service


• Applying for health and human services is easy and most of the initial work can be done by unskilled, low paid data entry clerks


• A new contractor can make call centers work

The release goes on to challenge all of these assumptions. It's good reading, and well worth keeping in mind as we re-fight this battle. Check it out.

Reversal of community college funding veto?

You never know sometimes what will turn into a big political issue. In the wake of the 80th Lege, one of the bigger controversies has turned out to be Governor Perry's veto of $154 million in health benefits for community college employees. It's generated enough heat that he felt the need to publicly defend his actions with an op-ed piece. Well, nearly two weeks after that, it appears the stars may be aligning for a reversal of Perry's cut.

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst said Wednesday he wants a quick meeting of legislative budget leaders to restore cut funding for community colleges and a shortage in student financial aid.

Specifically, he wants to find a way to