Tag Archives: Texas Legislature

Statewide smoking ban: Round 5

Let’s hope that the fifth time is the charm.

For what? The state ought to impose a statewide ban on indoor smoking. No exceptions, please. Everywhere should fall under the rule.

The Texas Tribune reports that the Texas Legislature is likely to take up the issue for the fifth consecutive session when it convenes in January.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/12/19/smoking-ban-stalls-capitol-cities-go-it-alone/

The odds aren’t great that it’ll pass either legislative house. Both chambers will be full of pro-business Republicans who think the government has no say in determining whether Texans should be exposed to second-hand smoke. That’s a business call, they’ll contend.

Never mind that the Texas Restaurant Association — a key business group affected directly by such a law — supports a statewide ban.

We’ve danced to this tune already in Amarillo. Voters here have rejected narrowly two city referenda calling for a citywide ban.

The state, though, can weigh in this coming year.

It’s not that Texas is plowing new ground. Two dozen states already have enacted statewide smoking bans. More than 30 Texas cities have enacted such a ban, many with exceptions made for restaurants and businesses that serve alcohol.

Yes, there will be those who contend that business owners should be allowed to make these decisions for themselves.

But if second-hand smoke presents a health hazard and if some businesses refuse to ban smoking inside their establishments, isn’t the state obligated to step in protect people’s health?

Yes, we have choices. We can choose to do business in a place where we cough at the smell of smoke, or we can choose to go somewhere else.

Still, a statewide ban isn’t an unreasonable rule to impose on business owners. Who knows? Maybe we’ll all get used to living in a totally smoke-free indoor environment.

I’m not going to hold my breath — pun intended — waiting for the Legislature to do the right thing.

 

Perry to Aggies: I'm thinking about running

Here’s a news flash: Texas Gov. Rick Perry said some other things to college graduates besides declining an offer to have a building named after him at Texas A&M University.

Such as — he’s thinking about running for president of the United States of America.

That’s kind of a big deal, yes?

Perry spoke at the Texas A&M convocation. He told graduates the school from which he graduated shouldn’t name the Academic Building after him. Then he went on to say that he’s pondering another run for the White House.

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/texas-politics/2014/12/perry-teases-presidential-run-in-speech-to-aggies/#13219101=0

He ticked off his credentials as someone who governed a state with the world’s 13th-largest economy and oversaw a group of individuals who “bicker a lot,” referring to the Legislature.

He told the A&M grads he’ll be looking for a job in about 30 days, just as they will.

Is this a precursor to a presidential run? Yes, it sounds like it to me.

I hope he jumps in. I’ve already spoken out in favor of Mitt Romney getting back into the game. I’m inclined also to welcome Jeb Bush into the Republican presidential field.

Why not — to coin the late Molly Ivins’s term — Gov. Goodhair?

He’s got the look, the charisma, some governing experience and he’s developing a pretty good gift of gab.

Perry’s ideas about the role of government, though, don’t quite set well with some of us out here. He’s inclined to be anti-federal government, which is sort of an dubious stance for someone who wants to oversee it.

But what the heck. He gave us a few laughs the last time he ran for the White House in 2012. Maybe he’s got a few more gag lines up his sleeve the next time around.

Bring it, governor!

 

A&M regents get an earful from students

Renaming a building after a living politician can be a dicey proposition no matter the circumstance.

The Texas A&M University System Board of Regents has found that out. The board cancelled a meeting today in which it was to consider naming the Academic Building after outgoing Gov. Rick Perry. Students protested vehemently on social media about it, apparently upset at the lack of prior notice and the opportunity to comment on the proposal.

Then came the governor himself, declining to have the building named after him.

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2014/12/am-students-protest-renaming-of-academic-building-for-rick-perry.html/

This all turned out for the better on at least a couple of levels.

I’ve said already that A&M shouldn’t name a building after a politician who’s got some felony indictments hanging over him. The case involving accusations of abuse of power and coercion need to be resolved. They’re a long way from that end.

Second, the students had a right to have their say. Let’s face it, higher education has taken a huge hit from the Texas Legislature and from the governor. Texas A&M, one of the state’s premier public university systems, has not been immune from deep budget cuts. Should students have the right to oppose naming a historic structure after a governor on whose watch the state slashed from higher education? Yeah, I think so.

For his part, Perry declined the “honor” of having the building named in his honor, saying in prepared remarks tonight that “do so because certain places on this campus, like our most sacred traditions, transcend any one individual. They are bigger than any one of us and represent our shared heritage. And I want to keep it that way.”

No mention, of course, of the legal trouble or of the student protests, or of the cancelled meeting.

That’s OK.

The A&M Board of Regents should set this bad idea aside.

 

Abbott getting good early reviews

Texas Gov.-elect Greg Abbott is getting some good reviews from at least one unlikely source.

They’re coming from Texas Monthly blogger/editor Paul Burka, who salutes Abbott for (a) setting a constructive agenda for the state and (b) selecting a team of grownups to advise him.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/finally-real-governor

Burka, of course, isn’t always kind to Republican politicians, given the sharply rightward shift the GOP has taken during the past decade or longer.

I share some of what Burka says about Abbott. However, I’ll withhold further comment on the new governor after I see how he handles the TEA party pressure he’s going to get from Republicans who comprise super-majorities in both legislative chambers.

The TEA party politician in chief is going to be the lieutenant governor, Dan Patrick, who will preside over the Texas Senate for the next four years.

Rest assured that Patrick will have his eyes focused sharply on Abbott, pressuring him to keep tacking to the right on spending and perhaps even on some social issues near and dear to TEA party followers’ hearts.

Some folks are suggesting that Patrick might challenge Abbott in four years if the governor doesn’t govern the way he wants.

How will Abbott respond to the pressure that many of us think will come? He can remind Patrick that he — Abbott — is the governor and that the governor speaks for the state.

Lt. Gov. Patrick might not see it that way.

Hang tough, Gov. Abbott.

 

Abbott turns focus on public education

Texas Gov.-elect Greg Abbott just cannot stand the fact that California — and not Texas — is home to five of the nation’s top 10 public universities.

That’s what he said today at his first news conference since being elected governor.

Thus, he vowed to make public education the top priority of his administration.

To which I say, “Very good, Gov. Abbott.”

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/12/08/governor-education-will-be-abbotts-top-priority/

Now comes the obvious question: How is it that California’s public universities rate so much better than Texas’s public institutions of higher learning?

Here’s a guess: Because our fellow countrymen way out west invest in their public institutions, rather than gut them.

The past two legislative sessions have seen dramatic cuts in public education at many levels. The state’s been short of money, so it takes aim at one of the bedrocks of its future: public education.

At no level at all does that make sense. Yes, conservatives — led by the TEA party movement among Republicans — keep saying you can’t “buy a good education.” Well, actually you can.

You can spend more to hire quality faculty and administrative staff; you can invest on physical infrastructure at our major university systems. Both of those things can — and do — attract top-quality students, who then boost academic performance measurements and, therefore, create a public educational system that becomes the envy of other states.

California has done that, even as it, too, has struggled to recover from the economic collapse of late 2008.

Texas public officials are fond of ridiculing California. Yes, we do a lot of things right in Texas. They also do some things correctly in California.

Developing a first-rate public university system is a strategy worth emulating.

 

 

 

Let the 'pole tax' stand in Texas

The Texas Legislature has gotten a bit goofy in recent years as the state keeps shifting farther and farther to the right.

However, the 2007 Legislature got it correct when it enacted the so-called $5 per-person “pole tax” levied against patrons of strip clubs. I’m glad that the state Supreme Court sees fit to let the tax stand.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/11/21/supreme-court-declines-peek-pole-tax/

The court declined to review a Third Court of Appeals ruling that declared the tax didn’t violate the Texas Constitution. The entertainment industry lobby had contended the fee is an “occupation tax,” which is prohibited by the Constitution.

Not so, says the Supreme Court.

I happen to think this is a fairly creative way to generate revenue for the state. Opponents of the fee say the state should designate a portion of it to public education. The lower court had ruled that the fee, which is an excise tax, can go to whatever program the Legislature designates.

Whatever, it’s a money-maker for the state. The so-called “gentlemen” who partake of this form of entertainment need to keep an extra five bucks in their wallet.

Hey, it’s better spent that way than when you tuck into someone’s undergarment … correct?

 

 

But … what about your constituents?

The selection of a new general counsel for the Texas Department of Agriculture brings to mind a question I trust the appointee has considered: Is it fair for a state legislator, who has just won re-election, to abandon his constituents who just placed their trust in him to look after their affairs in Austin?

Agriculture Commissioner-elect Sid Miller picked a former state House colleague, Rep. Tim Kleindschmidt, R-Lexington, to be the new general counsel for TDA.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/11/21/rep-kleinschmidt-takes-general-counsel-job-ag-depa/

I don’t know Kleindschmidt. I presume he’s a good lawyer and has represented his constituents diligently during his time in the Legislature. But he just been re-elected to serve along with the 149 other state representatives who faced the voters in the Nov. 4 general election. I’m going to creep out on that limb just a bit to presume Kleindschmidt made some pledges to voters along the way that he’ll serve their interests for the next two years.

Now he’s out. He’s headed for a key job in an important state government executive office.

My question to Miller is: With a state as large as ours, and with as many competent “ag lawyers” available, did you really and truly need to hire a legislator who’s made a promise to serve his constituents?

 

Texting ban needs to occur

So, I ran into state Rep. Four Price’s mother-in-law this week.

She told me Price, R-Amarillo, is in Austin “prefiling legislation” in advance of the next Texas Legislature, which convenes in January.

“I hope he files that ban on texting while driving,” I said, adding that the state needs to get tough with those who put others in danger on our public roadways. “I agree,” she said, chiming in with a comment supporting laws that ban smoking indoors.

http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/opinions/editorials/article/EDITORIAL-Texas-needs-ban-on-texting-while-5889014.php

My hunch is that we’re going to find out — quickly, I hope — what kind of governor Greg Abbott is going to be if he gets a texting ban bill on his desk.

He should sign the bill the moment it plops on his desk.

As my former newspaper, the Beaumont Enterprise, noted in an editorial, Texas wouldn’t be the first to ban texting while driving. Indeed, it would be one of the last states to do what it should have done already.  Forty-five states have such laws on the books.

Texas could have joined them, but Gov. Rick Perry vetoed a law in 2011, declaring that it “micromanaged” people’s lives.

Nuts!

The 2013 Legislature didn’t even pass a bill, knowing Perry would veto it again.

Now we get a new governor. It is my fervent hope he resists the pressure from the right wing of his Republican Party — which well could be led by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick — and approves a bill that Rep. Price and others throughout the Legislature say they support.

Do the right thing, ladies and gentlemen of the Texas Legislature.

 

 

Now, about that statewide texting ban

Let’s call this election right now.

Four Price is going to win re-election Tuesday to a third term in the Texas House of Representatives from House District 87.

There. Now that we’ve gotten that out of the way, it’s time to insist that the Amarillo Republican pick up where he and his colleagues left off in 2013 regarding a statewide ban on texting while driving motor vehicles.

Price has said he supports a ban. He’s voted for it twice. The 2011 Legislature — where Price served as a freshman — approved a bill banning texting while driving and sent it to Gov. Rick Perry’s desk. But the governor said it was too “intrusive,” or some such nonsense and vetoed it.

The 2013 Legislature, spooked by that veto two years earlier, didn’t get it approved.

Well, Gov. Perry is going to be gone in January. He’ll be polishing himself up and getting ready for another run for the presidency — unless he gets convicted of abuse of power back home in Texas.

The door is open once again for Price and his 149 House colleagues to do what they should have been able to do by now.

Ban the use of texting devices while motorists are driving their vehicles on our state’s highways.

Price is gathering some seniority in the House. He’s no stranger to the legislative process. His pal John Smithee, another Amarillo Republican, is one of the House’s senior members. He’s returning, too. The two of them can team up to strong-arm their colleagues to get this issue done.

Send the bill to the new governor’s desk and insist that he or she sign it into law.

It’s good for Texas.

 

 

Ban texting and driving

To be honest, I had to blink hard a couple of times when I read what state Rep. Four Price said regarding texting and driving.

He favors a statewide ban. The Amarillo Republican also said he believes the issue will come up in the 2015 Legislature and that absent an overt threat by the new governor — whoever he or she is — to veto it, that it is likely to end up on the governor’s desk at the end of the session.

I’m all for it.

Price is a self-proclaimed small-government conservative who said he’s voted for the statewide ban in previous sessions. He told the Amarillo Globe-News that motorists driving through our huge state are subject to varying municipal ordinances. Motorists need to be aware of what each city and town allows or prohibits regarding the use of telecommunications equipment while driving.

“I really believe it would be a wise thing to have a common standard across the state,” Price said.

You go, Four!

Lame-duck Gov. Rick Perry has kept his veto pen handy during previous attempts to enact this wise legislation. He complained about government overreach when he vetoed a bill calling for a statewide ban in 2011. The next Legislature didn’t bother to pass a bill, fearing yet another veto.

Perry will be out of office in January. The new governor — let us hope — won’t threaten a veto and scare off the next Legislature.

A statewide ban won’t prevent idiots from texting while driving, which is why some people still oppose this reasonable law. Still, a law that gives police authority to cite dimwitted motorists and then enables cities and counties to enact harsh punishments might deter some folks from endangering themselves and — even worse — other motorists or pedestrians.