Zerwas refuses to condemn subsidizing heroin addiction (while telling other bald faced lies)....

"The lips of the righteous feed many,
But fools die for lack of wisdom.
Proverbs 10:21

We attended appropriations chairman John Zerwas' trib event this morning.  It was the finest form in which we'd seen a Straus lieutenant in some time.  Our question about medicaid (to which the headline refers) is the final question in the video:



Highlights:

• Something, something "new sources of revenue."

• Calls Senate budget "austere."
• Note: LOLOLOL....

• "Reasonable" medicaid growth.

• "I don't think anyone wants to go back" to 2011 education budget 'cuts.'
• Personally, we'd like to eliminate socialized education in it's entirety; failing that, we'd love to cut it a LOT further than they went in '11.

• Wants appropriations committee budget vote to be unanimous.

• School finance requires: "undistracted period of time."
• Tacit endorsement of special session.
• Backtracks when he realizes he just endorsed a special session and calls for yet another 'study' during the interim.

• Endorses continued funding of state level border operations.

• Offers qualified praise of Obamacare.
• Repeal must be "very carefully thought out."
• Something, something people who obtained insurance under Obamacare need to be taken care of.

• Tax relief: "Going to be a challenge."
• "We need to fund our schools adequately...meet our responsibilities in Health Care" before tax relief.

• Rainy day fund: "We have to have a conversation" on a raid.

• Supplemental: "Will be out in the near future."
• Calls it a "one time expense" re: RDF.
• On what planet is medicaid not an ongoing expense?!?

• Parental Educational Choice: "I have to support my public school system."
• No "at this time."

• Throws privacy act under the bus.

Q&A:

• No public conference committee on budget.
• "We have to get the work done."

• Our question: Tells bald faced lie about Medicaid expansion.
• Calls his 2013 approach "innovative."
• Ignores the fact that he fully endorsed it in 2015.
• Non-committal on Tinderholt bill.

When Straus' House killed "Strategic Fiscal Reviews"

"There is desirable treasure,
And oil in the dwelling of the wise,
But a foolish man squanders it.
Proverbs 21:20

SB 53, by Jane Nelson, was a bill captioned: "relating to strategic fiscal reviews of state agencies and programs."

The purpose of the bill was to collect more information for legislators about state agencies going through the sunset process; among other things, it would require identifying statutory authority for each activity in which the relevant agency engages.

The bill passed the Texas Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support.  Notably, every Democrat voted for the measure.  Kelly Hancock was the lone dissenting vote.

On May 4th, Joe Straus referred SB 53 to the House Appropriations committee.  Under chairman John Otto, the bill stalled.  Strategic Fiscal Reviews were dead in committee.

No one denies that the 84th #TXLEGE produced a "reasonably not crappy" two year budget, but the fate of SB 53 illustrates (again) how Team Straus went out of their way to kill any sort of structural fiscal reform.

-----

Read the full bill below:

SB5384th#TXLEGE

Gio Gets Played

"The wise shall inherit glory,
But shame shall be the legacy of fools."
Proverbs 3:35

On Wednesday, Joe Straus released committee assignments.  While predictably awful, they were also revealing.  For obvious reasons, Gio is a case in point.  According to the legacy GOP narrative, Gio got 'plum' assignments on Appropriations and Local and Consent.  As the concern trolls at Texas Observer so 'helpfully' explain:

But Giovanni Capriglione, a Republican from the Metroplex who bucked his tea party supporters and loudly supported Straus, came out of his ordeal pretty decently. He sits on Appropriations, Local and Consent Calendars, and Investments and Financial Services—the last committee is sought-after for its members ability to raise money from the many well-heeled outsiders who have business before it.

But all is not as it seems.

An individual member makes little difference on any given committee (ESPECIALLY Appropriations).  What matters is the chairmanship and the composition of the committee.  Looking at Gio's committee assignments in context makes it obvious that he will be irrelevant on his 'plum' committees.

Empower Texans and YCT produce the most reliable conservative policy indexes in Texas; their 2013 rankings illustrate Gio's folly:

[Author's note: With a 94.4 from Empower Texans and a 92 from YCT, Gio had the highest score on either index.]

Appropriations:

• Chairman score: 35.5 ET; 41 YCT.

• Committee Average (with Gio): 40.5 ET; 40.1 YCT.

• Committee Average (without Gio): 38.1 ET; 37.8 YCT.

Local and Consent:

• Chairman score: 22.2 ET; 15 YCT.

• Committee Average (with Gio): 51.8 ET; 51.7 YCT

• Committee Average (without Gio): 48.2 ET; 48.4 YCT

• Committee Average (without Gio, Jason Isaac, or Drew Springer): 39.7 ET; 34.8 YCT. (*)

Bottom Line: Having a "seat at the table" is irrelevant.  Even if you get a "seat," leadership will stack the remaining "seats" at said "table" to make your "seat" meaningless.  Anyone who believes otherwise is a sucker.

Methodology Below:

-----

* -- While we we didn't calculate their respective committee averages, a glance at Jason Isaac's and Drew Springer's assignments reveals a similar phenomenon.

-----

From the great minds think alike department, Tony McDonald likewise observes:

The media were quick to point the finger at those conservatives who had stayed true to their convictions and supported Scott Turner for Speaker. These members were “foolish” and had allegedly been punished with “bad” committee assignments, while members who sold out their principles and constituents were lauded for reaping great “rewards.”

To paraphrase a quote from Ronald Reagan, “It isn’t so much that the liberal media is ignorant. It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so.”

The reality is that the Speaker and his allies engage in a false barter with members. It reminds us of the trade offered by Bart Simpson to his father, Homer: “I’ll trade you this delicious doorstop for that crummy old Danish,” offered Bart. In much the same way, House leadership, the media, and the lobby are all busy telling members that they will really enjoy a spot on a “powerful” committee if they will just trade in their crummy old ability to vote “no.”

A “coveted” spot on House Appropriations is put up as the sweetest plum of all. Many in the media were quick to latch on to the fact that Rep. Giovanni Capriglione, who infamously turned his back on his former conservative ally Scott Turner at a local Tea Party meeting, was given a spot on the “budget writing” committee.

However, as we have pointed out before, members on the Appropriations Committee don’t actually write the budget. That task is reserved for a small handful of appointees to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB) and the bureaucrats they employ. After the budget is released by the LBB, the Appropriations Committee members meet early and often, but only end up tinkering around the edges of the initial document. Then, after both chambers pass the budget, it is sent to another small hand-selected group on the conference committee who largely rewrite the document as they see fit.

-----

Update: Another funny note is that Gio, Isaac, and Springer were the only low-threshold conservatives to get on any of the important committees; the rest were shut out completely. 

Ted Cruz Debrief Pt. 1: Appropriations Committee

Yesterday, I interviewed Texas U.S. Senate Candidate Ted Cruz.  In going back through the interview, I'm struck by the first thing he said.  Ted Cruz wants to serve on the Appropriations committee.

This is an unexpected and pleasant surprise.

Delivering spending reductions at any level of government, but especially the Federal, is tricky.  Reducing Spending requires mastering complex budget processes that are deliberately designed to bore normal people.  The respective House and Senate Appropriations committees are where individual members exercise maximum leverage over the budget.

For example, the reason Gov. Scott Walker's budget repair law has succeeded so spectacularly in Wisconsin is because Gov. Walker mastered the boring details of process.  When the unions offered to give Scott Walker some financial concessions in exchange for maintaining their corrupt bargaining protections, Walker wisely said no.  Scott Walker understood that dismantling the unions corrupt bargaining protections was a more important reform than temporary financial concessions.

When Ted Cruz says, "most people want to serve on Approps to spend money...and I'd like to serve on Appropriations to lead the fight to dramatically reduce the size, power, and spending of the Federal Government and to stop appropriating money beyond our means" that's huge.  It indicates that Ted Cruz has already given thought to the boring process details that are key to long-term spending reductions. Dismantling Federal Spending will require a pain in the ass Senator (or two) (or three) on the Appropriations committee; Ted Cruz is obviously prepared to be that pain in the ass.

One factor that has consistently impressed me about Ted Cruz is his knowledge of boring process in the U.S. Senate.  Ted Cruz understands that Congress needs to flex it's atrophied Constitutional muscles, and he understands how to do so effectively.  The Appropriations committee is just one example of this fact.

As Texans consider which U.S. Senate Candidate will deliver on their promises to dismantle Federal intrusion into Texas, Ted Cruz has already figured out many of the boring process details.