Off the Kuff Rotating Header Image

April 1st, 2013:

RIP, Jack Pardee

A sad day for Houston sports.

Jack Pardee

Jack Pardee, a legend of Texas football from the six-man playing fields of Christoval to the barren wasteland of Junction to the Astrodome in Houston, has died of cancer, his family disclosed today.

Pardee, 76, was diagnosed with terminal gall bladder cancer in November.

“My dad was committed to football, but he was always close to his family,” Pardee’s son, Ted Pardee, said. “He had a lot of love to give. He was a sweet guy who was never afraid to give us a hug and kiss. He fought a tough battle, and we’re going to miss him.”

Pardee recently moved to a hospice facility in a Denver suburb, where two of his daughters reside.

Pardee’s family moved to Texas from Iowa in the mid-1940s so his father, Earl, could receive treatment for rheumatoid arthritis in Christoval’s mineral baths. Pardee scored 57 touchdowns for the town’s regional six-man champions in 1952 and then played three seasons for Texas A&M, enduring coach Bear Bryant’s infamous training camp in Junction in 1954 and winning all-Southwest Conference honors in 1956. He then played for the Rams and Redskins, with a two-year break in 1965-66, from 1957 through 1972, winning NFC Defensive Player of the Year honors in 1972.

He went on to coach the World Football League’s Florida Blazers (1974), the Chicago Bears (1975-77) and Redskins (1978-80) and, in 1984-85, the run-and-shoot Houston Gamblers of the United States Football League, winning coach of the year honors in 1984. After the USFL disbanded, he succeeded Bill Yeoman at UH, where quarterback Andre Ware won the 1989 Heisman Trophy, from 1987 through 1989.

In 1990, he returned to the NFL with the Oilers, leading the team to the playoffs in his first four seasons before losing his job following a 1-9 start in 1994. His career NFL coaching record is 87-77.

Pardee’s Oilers were ultimately a frustrating team to watch, and if you were in Houston in January of 1993 you probably still bear the scars of that playoff game, but they sure were fun. Paredee’s teams featured some iconic players from the Oilers’ history, and his run of success came after a multi-year run of futility. He made an indelible mark on football history here in Houston and in Texas, and he will be missed. Rest in peace, Jack Pardee.

Getting on the same page on marriage equality

Harold Cook asks a darned good question.

As SCOTUS hears arguments on marriage equality this week, it reminds me of when the Texas Legislature voted for the state constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage in Texas eight years ago. Texas voters subsequently approved the measure that November by a 3-to-1 margin. I wonder if any of the legislators voting on that piece of crap would vote differently today?

I am particularly reminded of the Democrats who voted yes (or Present, Not Voting). Some of the statements of vote (scroll to the bottom) are surprising and disappointing, including those made by various House Democrats, two of whom are now in the US Congress and several of whom remain in the legislature or otherwise in the public eye. (and one of whom was, ironically, drummed out of office in part for gay baiting).

In the Senate (in which it was debated with zero votes to spare, while two Democrats voted yes):

HJR 6 was adopted by the following vote: Yeas 21, Nays 9.

Yeas: Armbrister, Averitt, Brimer, Deuell, Duncan, Eltife, Estes, Fraser, Harris, Jackson, Janek, Lindsay, Lucio, Madla, Nelson, Ogden, Seliger, Shapiro, Staples, Wentworth, Williams.

Nays: Barrientos, Ellis, Gallegos, Hinojosa, Shapleigh, VanideiPutte, West, Whitmire, Zaffirini.

And in the House:

The roll of those voting yea was again called and the verified vote resulted, as follows (Record 396): 101 Yeas, 29 Nays, 8 Present, not voting.

Yeas — Mr. Speaker(C); Allen, R.; Anderson; Baxter; Berman; Blake; Bohac; Bonnen; Branch; Brown, B.; Brown, F.; Callegari; Campbell; Casteel; Chisum; Cook, B.; Cook, R.; Corte; Crabb; Crownover; Davis, J.; Dawson; Delisi; Denny; Driver; Edwards; Eissler; Elkins; Escobar; Farabee; Flynn; Frost; Gattis; Geren; Gonzalez Toureilles; Goodman; Goolsby; Griggs; Grusendorf; Guillen; Haggerty; Hamilton; Hamric; Hardcastle; Harper-Brown; Hartnett; Hegar; Hilderbran; Hill; Homer; Hope; Hopson; Howard; Hughes; Hunter; Hupp; Isett; Jackson; Jones, D.; Keel; Keffer, B.; Keffer, J.; King, P.; King, T.; Kolkhorst; Krusee; Kuempel; Laney; Laubenberg; Madden; McCall; McReynolds; Merritt; Miller; Morrison; Mowery; Olivo; Orr; Otto; Paxton; Phillips; Pickett; Quintanilla; Raymond; Reyna; Riddle; Ritter; Rose; Seaman; Smith, T.; Smith, W.; Solomons; Straus; Swinford; Talton; Taylor; Truitt; Van Arsdale; West; Woolley; Zedler.

Nays — Allen, A.; Alonzo; Anchia; Bailey; Burnam; Coleman; Davis, Y.; Deshotel; Dukes; Dunnam; Dutton; Farrar; Gallego; Herrero; Hochberg; Hodge; Martinez Fischer; McClendon; Moreno, J.; Moreno, P.; Naishtat; Noriega, M.; Puente; Rodriguez; Strama; Thompson; Veasey; Villarreal; Vo.

Present, not voting — Castro; Chavez; Giddings; Gonzales; Jones, J.; Leibowitz; Turner; Wong.

Absent, Excused — Eiland; Luna; Menendez; Nixon; Oliveira; Pitts; Smithee.

Absent — Flores; Martinez; Pena; Solis; Uresti.

I’ve helpfully highlighted all of the yea-voting Democrats in bold. All of the non-voters were Democrats except for Martha Wong, Joe Nixon, Jim Pitts, and John Smithee. You should click over to read some of the statements made by the non-voters, several of whom would have voted Yes and several of whom had less-than-stellar reasons for voting No. The good news is that there’s only a handful of yea-voting Dems left in the Lege – Eddie Lucio in the Senate; Ryan Guillen, Tracy King, Joe Pickett, and Richard Raymond in the House. Allan Ritter is still in the House but switched to the GOP in 2011.

I wanted to know what these legislators thought about marriage equality today. I sent the following emails to their communications directors and/or chiefs of staff:

As you know, the Supreme Court is hearing two cases this week that have to do with marriage equality. Eight years ago, the Texas Legislature approved HJR6, which was “a constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman”, which was subsequently ratified by the voters. Recent polling makes it clear that as with the rest of the country, Texans’ attitudes towards marriage equality are evolving, and Texans today are more favorably inclined to the idea than ever before. Democrats in particular are quite favorable to marriage equality, but that wasn’t always the case. In 2005, [your boss] was one of only three Democrats to vote Yes on HJR6 in the Senate/fifteen Democrats to vote Yes on HJR6 in the House. I would like to know, if he had to do it again today, would he still vote for HJR6?

This session, there are several joint amendments that would repeal this amendment – HJRs 77 and 78, and SJR 29. While I recognize that it is highly unlikely any of these resolutions will come to a vote, I would like to know if one of them did come up for a vote, would [your boss] vote for it?

I am sending this question to all five Democratic members of the Legislature who voted for HJR6 in 2005 and who are still serving as Democrats in the Legislature today. I intend to print the responses on my blog when I receive them. I look forward to receiving [your boss’] answer. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks very much.

The only complete response I got was from Rep. Richard Raymond:

In 2010 I decided that the only position I would take on the issue of marriage would be that I am pro marriage. Period.

Whether a person is gay or straight should be irrelevant.

What matters is that two people who love each other and want to get married should be able to do so.

Obviously, I’m glad to hear that. I wish I could say I got the same kind of answer from everyone I asked, but I can’t. Rep. Ryan Guillen responded that he had not read the legislation to repeal HJR6 – “I typically read bills as they come up for consideration and make my decision at that time”, he said. I followed up to inquire about whether he had changed his mind about his vote on HJR6, but did not get a response. Sen. Lucio declined to comment. I got no response from Reps. Tracy King or Joe Pickett despite two and three emails sent to them, respectively. So there’s still work to be done here. But we have come a long way. As Texas on the Potomac noted, not a single Texas Democrat voted against DOMA in 1996 – Sheila Jackson Lee, who voted “present”, was the only one not to vote in favor of it – but now many of them are full-throated in support of marriage equality. We will get to where we need to be, with marriage equality. I don’t know how long it will take, and I don’t know who will refuse to come along, but ultimately we will get there. It’s just a matter of time.

The limits of the Arkansas option

I’ve mentioned the Arkansas option for expanding Medicaid several times, under which the state uses Medicaid money to buy private health insurance for those who would be eligible for Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. It’s not my preferred solution, but it has some merits and would certainly be better than doing nothing. However, while the federal government has shown a great deal of flexibility in allowing an arrangement like this and like what is on the table in Florida if their legislature doesn’t deep-six it, that flexibility has its limits, as the state of Tennessee found out.

It’s constitutional – deal with it

Tennessee wanted to pursue a plan like that of Arkansas, one where it would use the Medicaid expansion dollars to buy private insurance coverage. And while Arkansas received a preliminary go-ahead from HHS, Gov. Bill Haslam had a quite different experience: He says that Health and Human Services would not support his plan to expand Medicaid and, as a result, he will not move forward.

“As a result of the lack of clarity from HHS,” his office said in a late Wednesday statement, “the governor will not ask the General Assembly for approval to accept the Medicaid expansion federal funds as he continues to work for the flexibility needed to implement his plan.”

Haslam told local reporters that the Obama administration didn’t reject the entire proposal. “Of our request to Medicaid,” he said, “we got one or two yes’s, one or two no’s, and a whole lot of I don’t knows.”

[…]

But some of the other points in the Tennessee proposal might have raised eyebrows in the Hubert Humphrey Building. The governor proposed “co-pays for those who can afford to pay something.” As for what that would mean in practice, Andy Sher at the Chattanoga Times Free Press reports that the governor wanted Medicaid beneficiaries to pay the same cost-sharing as other exchange enrollees.

Medicaid experts I’ve spoken with have made it clear that such an approach wouldn’t fly: Even if they receive private coverage, the Medicaid agency would need to ensure they aren’t spending more out of pocket than they would in the public plan.

Officials in Arkansas agree with this interpretation, too. “Medicaid definitely has strict rules for people below the poverty line and then they issued some new rules this year, for people above the poverty line,” Arkansas Medicaid spokeswoman Amy Webb told me last month. “We still believe those apply, and we intend to follow those.”

I bring this up because while there has been some talk about the “Arkansas solution” among Texas Republicans, what they’re really talking about is more akin to the Tennessee proposal. Specifically, “copays, deductibles and premium payments on a sliding scale for poor patients, using asset testing to ensure services are going to people who truly need them” are among the items Rick Perry and his ideological cohorts are demanding. The shell bill filed by Rep. John Zerwas that would direct HHSC to negotiate with the Obama administration over a “Texas solution” includes this language, though it’s not clear to me if it’s an option or a requirement. If it’s the latter, I think we now know how these negotiations are going to go.

The point I’m trying to make here is that we need to pay attention to the contents of HB 3791 and listen carefully to what people like Rep. Garnet Coleman have to say about it. If the final bill includes demands for things that the feds have already categorically rejected, then we need to be aware of that up front. Because if it does contain such a requirement, then we need to be prepared for when Rick Perry claims that he “tried” to negotiate with the Obama administration but they were too inflexible and unwilling to compromise so we can call it out for the BS that it is. If Texas negotiates in good faith, the feds have shown that they can be very accommodating. If not, we shouldn’t be surprised when the negotiations fail, and we shouldn’t let the state claim that they made a legitimate effort. Perry and his cronies have made it abundantly clear that they really, really don’t want to expand Medicaid. We should take them at their word and not be distracted by side issues.

Payday lending legislation may go nowhere

I can’t say I’m surprised, since Sen. John Carona’s most recent version of a payday reform bill was not met well by advocates for consumers and the poor.

Among other things, Carona’s proposal would limit the maximum size of loans to a percentage of the borrower’s monthly income and cap the number of times a borrower could roll over outstanding loans.



The initial version of the bill elicited measured praise from consumer groups. But that support has eroded amid concerns that the bill’s consumer protections have been watered down and that key provisions have been replaced by language favored by industry trade groups.

“It’s been pretty touch-and-go for the past couple of weeks,” said Don Baylor, a senior policy analyst at the Center for Public Policy Priorities, an Austin-based liberal think tank, who is involved in negotiations to reinstate consumer protections in the measure.

“The last version that was in the committee has caused a lot of the consumer groups to pull back,” Baylor said. “A lot of the industry actually testified in support of the bill.”

[…]

During the current legislative session, lawmakers proposed additional regulations. Former House speaker, state Rep. Tom Craddick, R-Midland, filed a measure that would extend already existing rules for small loans to the auto title and payday lending business.

Most of payday lending bills, so far, have been left pending in committee, but SB 1247 has received the lion’s share of attention from both reformers and the industry.



Last week, a new version of the bill appeared that consumer advocates argue weakened many of the consumer protections.

In the original bill, a payday loan taken on within five days of a previous loan was considered refinancing – a rule intended to prevent borrowers from rolling over their loans ad infinitum, paying more fees and interest.

Consumer activists wanted a period of seven days, but the revised bill would reduce the required gap to two days.

In the original bill, the size of some payday loans was capped at 15 percent of monthly income for those making less than $28,000 a year, and 20 percent for those making more. In the new version of the bill, those limits are set at 30 percent and 40 percent, respectively.


Baylor said the new monthly limits simply explicitly allow current practices.



“It’s kind of akin to putting a 75 mile-per-hour speed limit on a residential road,” he said. “You can say it’s a limit, but it’s not going to make anybody safer.”

Complicating matters, the new state regulations would trump city ordinances that regulate short-term lending. Since 2011, several Texas cities, including Austin, Dallas, San Antonio and El Paso, have passed regulations that are more restrictive than the current version of SB 1247. If the bill passes, restrictions on payday lending would be relaxed in such areas.

As I said before, no bill is preferable to a bad bill, and any bill that undoes the ordinances some cities have adopted to regulate payday lenders is unacceptable. If waiting till next session to try again is the best option, then that’s what we should do.

Harris County wants to be like the city in regulating eight-liners

One of the main differences between Houston and Harris County is that the city can generally do what it wants to do while the county had to get a law passed to do the same thing.

When the city of Houston began enforcing stricter regulations on topless clubs and massage parlors, officials saw complaints against those sexually oriented businesses increase in the unincorporated parts of Harris County. Then in 2009, the Legislature granted counties the authority to regulate those kinds of establishments, which law enforcement officials said were operating as fronts for prostitution and human trafficking.

Now, Harris County is seeking similar authority from the state to regulate game rooms outside Houston city limits, which the Sheriff’s Office says have tripled in number in the last five years after the city tightened laws to combat what officials say have become hotbeds for armed robberies, homicides and other illegal activity.

“Our goal here is to make sure our law enforcement has adequate tools to make sure the law is being followed,” said Precinct 4 Commissioner Jack Cagle, who said game rooms are “popping up” in north and northeast Harris County. “Whenever I’m visiting the precinct, the east side in particular, the little ladies in the Baptist church come out and say, ‘Will you please shut down the game hall that’s going on behind my church?’ ”

Bills sponsored by Houston-area lawmakers, modeled after city of Houston ordinances, would require game rooms with five or more machines, known as “eight-liners,” to receive permits from the county, which would inspect them. The bills also would give the county the power to cite violations, which would be elevated from Class C to Class A misdemeanors, as well as limit the location and number of game rooms.

“Whenever the city bans something, then it gets moved out into the unincorporated areas, so we’ve got to be able to deal with some of these less-than-desirable activities in the unincorporated areas, and game rooms are clearly one of them,” said County Judge Ed Emmett.

Sgt. Christopher Montemayor, who supervises the vice unit in the Sheriff’s Office, told state lawmakers earlier this month that Houston-area game rooms have seen 90 aggravated robberies, six homicides – with employees, patrons or security guards as victims – in the past few years.

“These businesses are growing, and we are trying to do something to deter these illegal establishments,” Montemayor said while testifying in favor of House Bill 1127, sponsored by Rep. Wayne Smith, R-Baytown. He added that “25 percent of these robberies go unreported because of the fact of the illegal activity going on there.”

See here and here for some background, and here for HB1127, which is currently pending in committee. I don’t see any obvious reason why it won’t pass, but sometimes these things happen. I just want to note that what Sgt. Montemayor says here about crimes going unreported at illegal eight-liner establishments is pretty much exactly what immigration advocates and law enforcement officials were saying two years ago during the “sanctuary cities” debate, which is that crimes against immigrants in general and undocumented immigrants in particular would increase under such a law since the victims of those crimes would be unwilling to call them in. I’m glad we didn’t have to learn that lesson the hard way.