Members of the Texas Legislature often pay their staff members with campaign money, a practice that some ethics gurus say poses a potential conflict of interest.

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/04/18/campaign-funds-prop-lawmakers-capitol-operations/

So reports the Texas Tribune (see link).

I get where the ethicists are coming from.

I’ll say up front that I’ve never given a dime to any candidate for public office in Texas – or in Oregon, for that matter, where I was born and where I came of age. But if I had given money, I would expect a certain kind of return for my investment in the political process.

Supplementing staffers’ salaries with campaign cash isn’t something I’d want my candidate doing with my money. I would rather the candidate use that money to promote issues and enact legislation that I would want enacted, or use it to defeat legislation I don’t want put on the books.

State Sen. Kirk Watson, D-Austin, dips into his campaign chest regularly. He told the Tribune he wants to attract a top-quality staff. Offering more money is an attractive inducement, he said.

Maybe. But does he stipulate up front that’s one of the areas where he’ll spend contributors’ money when they give it? I’ll bet not.

But here is where the ethics argument begins to stick. Cal Jillson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University, does see the campaign cash supplement as a potential conflict of interest by giving lobbyists and their employers added muscle. “It’s just another way in which the lobby runs the Capitol,” said Jillson told the Tribune. “They provide the lawmakers with walking around money and staff support.”

“Ethics in government,” sadly, has become almost something of an oxymoron in Texas. Isn’t there a way to clean up this mess?

I’ve long wondered something about Washington, D.C.’s political dynamic.

How is it that some newly minted senators and House members always manage to make headlines immediately upon their arrival, while others languish in the shadows, hardly ever seen or heard?

Two brand new U.S. senators come to mind:  Republican Ted Cruz of Texas and Democrat Chris Murphy of Connecticut.

Both of these guys are pretty smart young men. However, Cruz has emerged as something of a loudmouth, such as when he accused decorated Vietnam War veterans John Kerry and Chuck Hagel of lacking sufficient regard for the military. Murphy keeps showing up on TV talk shows, saying just recently that President Obama paid too little in taxes in 2012 while campaigning for re-election saying that Republican nominee Mitt Romney, um, paid too little in taxes.

http://thehill.com/video/senate/293827-dem-sen-murphy-obama-paid-too-little-in-taxes

The Senate comprises 100 individuals, all of whom more than likely possess outsized egos. I am acquainted only with one of them: John Cornyn, Republican of Texas. Thus, I don’t know how many of them resent these new guys’ bursting onto the national stage while spending so little time earning their stripes.

Murphy, incidentally, represented Newtown, Conn., in the U.S. House of Representatives before being elected to the Senate this past November. Therefore, he brings instant cache to the debate over gun control, given what happened in December at Sandy Hook Elementary School. But he seems to be blabbing publicly about all kinds of things, such as Barack Obama’s tax returns.

Meanwhile, other members of both congressional chambers who have just as much to say as the new fellows remain silent.

Isn’t there enough room on the stage for more of these folks?

Gov. Rick Perry says the Texas Legislature’s proposal to ban texting while driving is an attempt to “micromanage the behavior of adults.”

He has vetoed earlier legislation seeking to end the practice. He’ll do so again if the Legislature approves House Bill 63 and Senate Bill 28. I will add here that the legislation has drawn bipartisan support in the House and the Senate. And if Perry were to veto such a bill, there could be enough votes in the Legislature to override the veto, according to the Texas Tribune.

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/04/17/texting-while-driving-ban-hit-house-floor/

Perry’s effort to protect individual rights is an interesting tactic in this regard: The governor, along with other conservatives, are fond of saying that government shouldn’t intrude where it’s not needed – yet they have no difficulty intruding on such things as, say, private sexual conduct or whether a woman should be able to choose to end a pregnancy.

I happen to favor the statewide ban on texting while driving, understanding fully the difficulty the police will have in enforcing it. I would hope the state would impose severe penalties on those caught in the act and even more severe penalties if that activity results in a collision.

But this notion that a texting ban “micromanages” behavior intrigues me.

For many years the state banned homosexual activity. The state actually had the power to burst into someone’s bedroom and arrest anyone engaging in a homosexual act, such as sodomy. The U.S. Supreme Court, ruling on a Texas case, declared in 2003 that the law is unconstitutional. But the Legislature has yet to overturn that statute. Isn’t that micromanagement, governor?

As for abortion, the state is seeking to make that heart-wrenching decision more difficult for women, even though it remains legal under the law. Gov. Perry has no difficulty micromanaging a woman’s conscience.

So, Gov. Perry, where do we draw the line on micromanagement?

State Sen. Dan Patrick wonders why the editorial boards of the New York Times and Washington Post should care about Texas public education testing policy.

What’s more, he wonders why Texans should care what those newspaper editorial boards think about it.

http://www.texasobserver.org/dan-patrick-defends-plan-to-scale-back-testing/

I think I have the answer to the Houston Republican’s rants about them big-city media types. It’s because Texas matters to all Americans. We’re a big and important state. Indeed, our state economy is ranked at or near the top 10 of all the national economies of the world. We have more than 5 million students enrolled in public schools in Texas. The state is home to some of the finest publicly funded universities in the world. I won’t name them, for fear of leaving out someone’s alma mater.

At issue is whether the state should scale back the testing requirements it places on students. House Bill 5 would no longer require certain tests designed to prepare students for college. Some higher education officials are concerned that students graduating from high school will be ill-equipped for the rigors of college curriculum, which the New York Times has noted on its editorial page. It also noted that Gov. Rick Perry is concerned as well.

Patrick, who chairs the Senate Education Committee, wants the Times and the Post editorial boards to butt out.

My question is: Why should they? Texas education policy resonates across the country. We’re big and powerful, right, senator?

Heck, Sen. Patrick should be flattered that we’re getting all this attention.

U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., is showing some senatorial wisdom.

He is admonishing the media to “chill out” regarding its coverage of the Boston bombing. Good idea.

http://thehill.com/video/senate/294155-dem-senator-press-needs-to-chill-out-in-boston-marathon-coverage

But the freshman Democrat needs also to admonish his congressional colleagues and other so-called “experts” from speculating aloud as to who did the deed. The FBI, along with state and local investigators are trying to piece together some vital information they hope will lead them to the bomber or bombers.

“Let the investigators do their work. Hopefully they have some leads here that are going to get them somewhere, but I don’t think we want the public information to get ahead of the private information,” Murphy said on MSNBC.

Indeed, one of the keys to any criminal investigation is to keep some information private so that the good guys don’t let the bad guys know what they know. Yes, that’s a mouthful. But there must be some privileged information that only law enforcement and the perpetrators can know and the more guarded that information remains the better chance the cops have of linking that information with whoever committed the crime.

Sen. Murphy is right to scold the media. He also ought to counsel his Capitol Hill colleagues to keep their own mouths shut.

U.S. Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., is one of many members of Congress who’s in love with the sound of his voice.

Allow me to stipulate that this is a bipartisan love affair. Democrats and Republicans are equally guilty of popping off when they should perhaps show some discretion.

King told a radio station that he is inclined to believe who ever killed three people and injured dozens more at the Boston Marathon on Monday is linked to a foreign terrorist group “or could be a white supremacist.”

OK, congressman, sure thing. Then again, it could be just some deranged crackpot.

King is known in D.C. as an expert on national security issues. He’s usually one of the first sources the TV networks seek out whenever an event such as the Boston bombing occurs. To be honest, though, this kind of public speculation does nothing but raise anxiety among those of us just wanting some answers from those who can provide them. Some congressman spouting off isn’t one of them.

I listened earlier today to Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, along with local and federal authorities say they have no idea yet who’s responsible for this terrible deed. President Obama spoke this morning and said essentially the same thing, but assured the nation that the perpetrator — whether one person or many — will be brought to justice.

It is my fond hope that in this time of grief and anger that our elected representatives refrain from this kind of needless guesswork. How about next time someone asks, “Congressman do you think this was an act of foreign or domestic terror?” they could say, “I don’t have the foggiest idea. Let’s allow the authorities do their job.”

You have to hand it to Texas Gov. Rick Perry.

His fearlessness is a thing to behold. And I don’t mean that necessarily as a compliment.

Perry’s latest job-poaching strategy is now aimed at Illinois. He’s taken out an ad in a business journal that goes directly after employers who might want to relocate in Texas.

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/04/15/perry-launches-ad-campaign-for-illinois-businesses/

You’ll recall that a few months ago, Perry ventured to California to recruit business owners there to bring their operations to Texas. He openly antagonized California Gov. Jerry Brown. I’m guessing he intended to do precisely that, given that Perry is a partisan Republican and Brown is an equally partisan Democrat.

And what about the Illinois governor? He is Patrick Quinn, another dreaded Democrat who more than likely doesn’t much like the overtures that Perry is making in his state.

The last time I commented on Perry’s job-hunting venture, some of my friends said I was being unfair because, they said, the governor is merely doing his job, which is to promote Texas. I certainly understand his desire to create jobs for Texans.

But what’s still a bit unsettling to me is the brazen approach Perry is taking with these public-relations tactics. It’s one thing to promote Texas’s business climate in the relative quiet of a corporate conference room or a board meeting. It’s quite another to make a grand show of it, which he did in California and which he is doing now with the Illinois effort.

Here’s what he posted in an “open letter” published in Crain’s Chicago Business: “If you’re a business owner in Illinois, I want to express my admiration for your ability to survive in an environment that, intentionally or not, is designed for you to fail. With rising taxes and government interference on the upswing, your situation is not unlike a burning building on the verge of collapse.”

Subtle, huh?

Still, there’s something to be said for the gumption the governor is showing. I cannot help but wonder how it might play with voters who – believe it or not – might have to consider whether someone who wants to take jobs away from their state is presidential material in, say, 2016.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel spoke some common sense language in scrapping a plan to award medals to those who operate unmanned drone aircraft from control centers thousands of miles from the battlefield.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/15/17765235-hagel-drops-controversial-medal-for-drone-operators?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=1

Hagel’s decision rescinds an act proposed by his immediate predecessor, former Secretary Leon Panetta, who had wanted to create a medal that individuals could earn for their work in conducting the war with the unmanned aircraft and other cyber operations.

The Pentagon instead will assign a pin that these service personnel can attach to existing medals. Observers have compared it to the “V” placed atop Bronze Star medals, which recognizes valor on the battlefield.

I don’t have a problem with recognizing the valuable work being done by these highly trained servicemen and women. Creating a new medal, though, seems a bit much.

Veterans groups and other critics had called the award the Nintendo Medal; its official name is the Distinguished Warfare Medal. The Nintendo reference, though, brings to mind what the military brass told us time and again when the public saw video of the air attacks that began the Iraq War in 2003.

“War isn’t a video game,” they would remind us. Indeed it isn’t.

A pin attached to an existing medal provides significant recognition for the work being done by drone controllers.

In this highly political environment, it is a lead-pipe cinch that someone – or many individuals – will make partisan hay out of what happened today in Boston.

Two people are known to have died today in the twin explosions near the finish line at the Boston Marathon. Nearly 30 more are injured. A terrorist act? Certainly it was – and it matters not one bit whether it was a right-wing group, a left-wing group, a foreign organization or a home-grown group that did the terrible deed.

That someone would detonate these devices in the midst of a cheering crowd is by definition a terrorist act.

My fervent hope in these early hours and beyond is that we concentrate fully on finding the perpetrators and bringing them to justice.

None of us needs to hear political recriminations. But rest assured: They’re likely to come pouring forth … any minute now.

Disgusting.

Congressman Bobby Rush is letting political correctness get the better of him.

The Illinois Democrat wants the House of Representatives to stop using the term “illegal immigrants” when referring to those who come into this country, um, illegally. His new preferred tem is “undocumented foreign nationals.”

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/293835-dem-resolution-calls-on-house-members-to-stop-saying-illegal-immigrant

OK, let’s not split hairs here.

I happen to be all for many provisions that President Obama wants to enact: The Dream Act would in effect grant amnesty to those who were brought here illegally by their parents when they were too young to do anything about it. I also favor streamlining legalization procedures to enable those who are here illegally to obtain legal resident status. I do not want to round up the 11 million or so people who are here illegally and send them back to their country of origin.

But I also do not feel the need to mess with the language to define individuals who failed – for whatever reason – to enter this country through legal means.

Rep. Rush is engaging in some kind of meaningless semantic exercise. “undocumented foreign nationals” means the very same thing as “illegal immigrants.”

The folks who sneaked into this country broke the law. Thus, they have committed an illegal act. Give them a chance to make it right. But let’s not get caught up in playing silly word games.