#TXLEGE: The Texas Senate needs to STOP giving the Austin Chronicle easy material

"God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."
John 4:24

Longtime readers know there is no media outlet this author despises more than the Austin Chronicle; which is why it kills us that they got this one 100% correct:

Sex and the Senate
What will it take to curb sexual harassment at the Texas State Capitol?
BY MARY TUMA, FRI., JAN. 25, 2019

Not more than two days into the 86th Texas Legislature, the 150-member House of Representatives approved a new, stronger reporting process to secure justice for victims of sexual harassment at the Capitol. The unprecedented (at least in recent history) move comes in the wake of the #MeToo movement, which ousted abusive male figures from their perches in politics, journalism, and Hollywood. And it follows a string of shocking media reports from last session that alleged harassment in the halls of the Capitol building from Democrats and Republicans alike over several years. Those reports ignited conversation within both legislative chambers on how best to respond to inappropriate behavior moving forward.

However, one body is noticeably working more steadfastly – and openly – on the issue than the other.

The House Committee on Administration acted quickly, proposing a first draft in December 2017 that was seen as a solid start that needed more work. Former Speaker Joe Straus then created a working group in May 2018 to examine the Texas House's sexual harassment policy and recommend ways to improve it. The 10-member group, led by Reps. Donna Howard, D-Austin, and Linda Koop, R-Dallas (who lost her re-election bid in November), was tasked with researching best practices in other states to "prevent and eradicate" misconduct in the Legislature. The latest iteration, approved as a resolution by a unanimous vote of the House on Jan. 9 after months of review, moves misconduct complaints to a House investigating committee with subpoena power, adding real teeth to a once-feeble policy.

Meanwhile, the Senate – recently encumbered by allegations of lewd behavior against one of its most powerful members, Georgetown Republican Charles Schwertner, has taken a slower approach. While the Senate elaborated its misconduct policy from one to six pages some five months after the House released its first draft, it has no plans to hold hearings or take a formal vote as the House did. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, never as engaged on the issue as Straus, also opted not to conduct a Senate investigation into Schwertner, instead taking the wait-and-see route as a University of Texas investigation played out. Both the Senate's weaker policy and its inaction in the Schwertner case have drawn criticism on the state's editorial pages, including a piece penned by former Sen. Wendy Davis.

During the few months of the current regular session, the Senate has the power to strengthen and codify its rules, but will it? Or does the upper chamber hope the issue of sexual misconduct – and public complaints against its members – gradually falls by the wayside?

The article goes on to discuss everything we already know.  We recommend reading the whole thing, but you already know  the names.  Carlos Uresti, Borris Miles, Craig Estes, Charles Schwertner....

The Chronicle then contrasts the reaction between the two chambers.  While we think they give both Joe Straus and the house more credit than they deserve, at least the House is trying.  The Senate, meanwhile, hasn't done anything meaningful.

The Texas Senate's political opponents have noticed.

Unfortunately, they're not wrong.

It gets better:

The Senate's inaction prompted Wendy Davis, who served two terms in the chamber representing Ft. Worth, to pen a critical editorial in the Statesman earlier this month demanding that the upper house get its act together. Among her chief complaints: There remains no legitimate recourse for people who are sexually harassed by legislators; there is no independent, third-party investigator to whom such complaints can be made; the Senate policy fails to define consequences for violations and has not extended its subpoena power, which could have compelled Schwertner (or others) to testify or provide information.

"What happened after the credible allegations against Sen. Schwertner – and also Sens. Miles and Uresti – starkly highlights how broken the system is," Davis told us. "I found myself feeling very upset and frustrated after reading the UT report. I was angry on behalf of the young woman and on behalf of many others who have endured sexual harassment at the Capitol. It's disappointing that the Senate appears disinterested in further investigating the incident."

....

Davis slams the policy as "a little more than window dressing, but not a whole lot more." She notes the "glaring differences" between Straus' leadership and Patrick's. "Straus supported the effort in an authentic and sincere way, with an open process and a work group," said Davis. "On the Senate side, there is more of an appearance of a process, but without any real desire to hear from experts and people who may have been on the receiving end of sexual harassment at the Capitol. To me, the process looked more like a kangaroo court."

There appears to be a "greater interest in protecting the body than in protecting young women working at the Capitol," says Davis. "It's often part and parcel of the way elected bodies function – if you protect your members, you gain their loyalty." Sexual misconduct at the Capitol is an open secret among members, she says, and she had her own brush with harassment as a freshman senator. During a social, UT-affiliated event, a House member, clearly inebriated, touched her inappropriately. She says it took that member three years to apologize; she never reported the incident because the Senate's policy did not make clear where or who to report to. Even if there had been a direct path, there was no hope that anything would come of it because there were no defined consequences, she says.

"We need to apply continued pressure on the Senate," said Davis. "We cannot give them a pass on this."

You know the situation is bad when you're getting hammered by Wendy Friggin' Davis...and she's completely right.

It's pathetic.

Bottom Line: You can't blame the other team for swinging the bat when you're the one lobbing softballs down the middle of the plate....

#TXLEGE: Kolkhorst's WAY Too Little, WAY to Late Sexual Misconduct "Policy"....

"It is an abomination for kings to commit wickedness,
For a throne is established by righteousness."
Proverbs 16:12

[Note: You can read what we said last December about the house's new policy here; you can read what we said about the Senate's lack of interest in this topic here and here.]

Nope, not even close:

The Texas Senate has adopted a new sexual harassment policy that mandates in-person anti-sexual harassment training for senators and offers more details on specific steps for reporting inappropriate behavior.

The Senate’s policy, which was sent out to Senate staffers on Wednesday, was expanded from a one-page document to a more extensive set of guidelines that provide detailed examples of what constitutes sexual harassment and more thoroughly explain the ways victims can get help through internal and external complaint processes.

The revisions come months after the The Texas Tribune detailed a wide range of harassment in state politics and the scant protections offered to victims through the chambers' policies, and after The Daily Beast detailed accounts of sexual assault in the Legislature. Those accounts included specific allegations against Democratic state Sens. Borris Miles of Houston and Carlos Uresti of San Antonio. Both have denied the allegations.

Like in the House — where lawmakers revised the chamber’s policy in December — the Senate’s training can’t be required of individual lawmakers, some of whom were behind the worst behavior recounted to the Tribune.

In a letter to her colleagues obtained by the Tribune, Senate Administration Chair Lois Kolkhorst, R-Brenham, indicated a list of lawmakers who have completed the training would be available to the public. But the chamber’s policy does not appear to set any sort of immediate deadline for current elected officials.

Instead, the revised policy indicates that in-person training will be offered every two years and that new employees must complete an online training within the first 30 days of their employment.

The policy was also revised to specifically state that senators will not be involved in investigating other senators, leaving investigations to the chamber's human resources director and "impartial attorneys."

But questions remain about how senators, who ultimately answer to voters back home, could be disciplined if they are found to have sexually harassed someone.

[Note: Emphasis added.]

What a joke.

So-called "training requirements" don't change behavior.   "Training" is about protecting employers from liability.  To change behavior, you need meaningful consequences.

Then there's the fact that Borris Miles seems to be getting away with everything.  Obviously, Uresti gave them an easy out.  But what about Miles?!?

As far as consequences are concerned, the two most important ones are loss of committee chairmanship and expulsion.

Of course, that's the whole point of our convention resolution.

On the other hand, at least Craig Estes lost his primary.

Bottom Line: The whole situation is disgusting....

#TXLEGE: Statements about several of today's bills....

"Oh, let the nations be glad and sing for joy!
For You shall judge the people righteously,
And govern the nations on earth. Selah"
Psalm 67:4

[Note: The business and commerce committee hearing can be viewed here; our testimony on the health insurance bill can be viewed around the 1 hour 15 minute mark, our testimony on the not changing permitting rules in the middle of the game bill can be found around three hours.]

We signed up to testify on six separate bills today at the Capitol.  We were only able to deliver that testimony on two.  On the final four bills, our remarks are the testimony we would have given if we'd been able to stick around."

• SB 8 (Creighton): "Relating to health plan and health benefit plan coverage for elective abortion."
  
  We testified that, similar to the local defunding bill from yesterday,  so long as our society is going to permit the slaughter of innocent children, they ought to at least not ask the rest of us to pay for it.
  
  That being said, we also realized later that eliminating abortion coverage from basic health insurance can only lower premiums.
  
• SB 12 (Buckingham): "Relating to limiting the applicability of municipal and county regulations affecting real property." [Note: This is the bill that would prohibit cities from changing the rules for construction projects in the middle of the game.]
  
  One of the taxpayer-funded municipal propagandists used the phrase "using zoning to protect property values" and we found that an astonishing euphemism for using the coercive power of the state to artificially restrict housing supply.
  
  Furthermore, we pointed out that housing costs are the biggest expense for the overwhelming majority of families nationally, in Texas, and here in Austin.  When abusive municipal governments, starting with but not limited to the city of Austin, change the rules in the middle of the game it drives up those housing costs.  This is terrible for upward economic mobility.
  
• SB 13 (Burton): "Relating to the issuance of a permit by a political subdivision."  [Note: This bill would establish firm deadlines for cities and counties to deny building permits.  Unless the political subdivision actively denies the permit, it is considered automatically granted after a certain period of time.  Also prohibits county and municipal governments from mandating wage rates.]
  
  Everything aspect of this bill is awesome.
  
• SB 14 (Hall): "Relating to a property owner's right to remove a tree or vegetation." [Note: This is the tree bill.]
  
  This bill has received a surprising amount of national attention, so there's not a lot that we have to add.  The property rights aspect of this discussion is obvious.  The only thing we would add is that the local politically entrenched disingenuous NIMBY crowd loves to use the tree ordinance as an excuse to delay construction and that anything that reigns in those people can only be a good thing.
  
• SB 1 (Bettencourt): "Relating to ad valorem taxation."
  
  There's been a lot of ink spilled over property taxes, to which we will simply add that the current property tax system is an obvious macroeconomic storm brewing on the medium-term horizon and that it's one of the few things that could truly take down the Texas economy (local government debt is the other).
  
  Furthermore, lowering the property tax cap would benefit renters alongside homeowners.  Renters (even if they don't realize it) pay property taxes through their rent.  Unfortunately, renters don't receive homestead exemptions.
  
• SB 18 (Estes): "Relating to a limit on local government expenditures."
  
  The flip side to clamping down on taxes is that you need to clamp down on spending as well and this bill does that.
  
  Furthermore, if you're serious about eliminating property taxes, making cities and counties live under spending caps  starts to make that a realistically viable option in four or six years down the line.

#TXLEGE: Wrapping up our testimonies from the 85th Regular Session....

"And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."
John 8:32

[Note: A very big, public, THANK YOU to Buddy Kipp of Empower Texans for pulling the video from the legislature's website.]

We've finally gotten our legislative testimonies from the regular session online; presented in chronological order.

• 1/26/2017 -- UT Regent confirmation hearing (Original post 1, 2)
  
  

• 3/14/2017 -- SB 113: "Relating to the provision of and local regulation of certain for-hire passenger transportation." [Note: This was Don Huffines version of the Uber bill that would have completely deregulated ALL ground transportation.] (Original Post)
  
  

• 3/14/2017 -- SB 451: "Relating to regulation of short-term rentals and short-term rental marketplaces by municipalities and counties."
  
  

• 3/23/2017 -- SB 19: "Relating to performance-based tuition limitations for and a temporary limitation on the amount of tuition and fees charged by certain public institutions of higher education. (Original Post)
  
  

• 3/27/2017 -- SB 445: "Relating to the authorization and reporting of expenditures for lobbying activities by certain political subdivisions and other public entities." (Original Post)
  
  

• 4/4/2017 -- SB 650: "Relating to tax increment financing." (Original Post)
  
  

• 4/11/2017 -- HB 3418: "Relating to municipal zoning affecting places or areas of historical, cultural, or architectural importance and significance." (Original Post)
  
  

• 4/18/2017 -- HB 2551: "Relating to regulation of short-term rentals by municipalities and counties." (Original Post)
  
  

• 4/26/2017 -- SB 1151: "Relating to the protection of expressive activities at public institutions of higher education." (Original Post)
  
  

• 5/11/2017 -- HB 100: "Relating to the regulation of transportation network companies; requiring an occupational permit; authorizing a fee." (Original Post)
  
  

• 5/11/2017 -- CSHB 21: "Relating to the funding of primary and secondary education." (Original Post)
  
  

• 5/15/2017 -- HB 17: "Relating to the establishment of the Texas Higher Education Innovation Accelerator for public institutions of higher education." (Original Post)
  
  

• 5/17/2017 -- SB 822: "Relating to the transfer of certain property from The University of Texas System to the Parks and Wildlife Department." (Original Post)
  
  

• 5/17/2017 -- SB 19: "Relating to performance-based tuition limitations for and a temporary limitation on the amount of tuition and fees charged by certain public institutions of higher education." (Original Post)
  
  

#TXLEGE: Abbott begins to roll out #SpecialSession Bill Sponsors....

"The hand of the diligent will rule,
But the lazy man will be put to forced labor."
Proverbs 12:24

A couple interesting press releases out of the Governor's office this morning.

First, on state spending caps:

In the upcoming special legislative session, Sen. Kelly Hancock, Reps. Tan Parker and Mike Schofield will file legislation to limit the growth in state spending to no more than the growth of population and inflation. This is one of 20 items that Governor Abbott previously announced will be added to the special session agenda.

Next, on local spending caps:

In the upcoming special legislative session, Sen. Craig Estes and Rep. Jason Villalba will author legislation to limit the growth in local spending to no more than the growth of population and inflation. This is one of 20 items that Governor Abbott previously announced will be added to the special session agenda.

A few thoughts:

• Estes and Hancock both have histories of sometimes doing good things and sometimes doing bad things.  Thus it's not surprising that they're doing this.   Good on them both.

• Schofield carried a similar bill during the regular session, thus his presence isn't surprising.

• Tan Parker carrying the state level bill is very interesting.  Parker's previous shortcomings as GOP conference chair have been well documented.  We suspect Abbott has taken Parker to the woodshed, but regardless the dynamic of seeing Parker caught between Abbott and Straus will be very revealing.

• Villalba carrying the local bill is...disappointing.  We suspect he'll try to push a bill with more loopholes than Swiss cheese.  This bill might very well need to be fixed via floor amendments.

• That being said, there's a certain savvy in working with House members of have historically been supportive of leadership, but not part of the inner circle, that could make life very uncomfortable for Joe Straus if we get 8 or 9 days into the special and bills aren't moving.

Bottom Line: We'll have to see what happens, but today's announcements strike us as a reasonably positive development.

#TXLEGE: Scalise shooting changes Constitutional Carry calculation for #SpecialSession

"Every one of the builders had his sword girded at his side as he built. And the one who sounded the trumpet was beside me."
Nehemiah 4:18

Regarding constitutional carry, one reality has guided our thinking since the end of the regular session: According to several private conversations with knowledgeable sources, we are at least four votes short in the Texas Senate.  Thus, this issue has struck us as one that just requires one more election cycle before it becomes a realistic possibility.  During a special session that already features more issues than we will have the bandwidth to cover, it has struck us as prudent to save this one for 2019.

But last week's Congressional shooting changed our thinking.

Since then, we can't escape the following conclusion: In a world where politically motivated assassination attempts are a contingency for which we must prepare, what if removing barriers to entry for lawful firearms ownership prevents (or even minimizes) one tragedy?!?

It would be hard to live with ourself if we didn't try.

We want to make one thing clear: During the special session, this author will almost certainly not have time to work this issue.  Thus, even if it does get added to the call, don't expect to hear a lot about it here.  But this issue has a corps of very committed activists and the truth is that our personal participation is not necessary.

Furthermore, from a political perspective, there's also the fact that during a special session you only need 16 votes to pass a bill in the Senate.  Thus Kel Seliger, Bob Nichols, Joan Huffman, and Craig Estes would be free to vote no.  While holding the other 16 Senate Republicans isn't necessarily a slam dunk, it does strike this website as a realistic possibility.

Bottom Line: Even if this author has personal bandwidth limitations, this issue really should get added to the call.

#TXLEGE: "Save MUNY" bill refuses to die....

We apologize for the blurry picture, but that's actually a good metaphor for the revival of this bill.

"Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things? Or is your eye evil because I am good?!?"
Matthew 20:15

[Note: The hearing can be viewed here, our testimony is just after the one hour mark.]

It's not often we testify in a committee hearing on the same side of an issue as Greg Fenves and the Texas Exes, but such is the nature of an obscure land dispute in West Austin in which the legislature has inexplicably chosen to involve itself.  We had thought this one was dead.  But late yesterday afternoon, the House Land and Resource management committee announced a hearing on short notice.

We outlined the reasons for our opposition to SB 822 when it was heard in the Senate back in March.  The short version is that UT is sitting on an extraordinarily valuable tract of land in West Austin, which UT has occasionally considered selling to residential/mixed use developers.  In a city with a chronic housing shortage, keeping this option on the table seems prudent; unfortunately, that prudence exists alongside some dirty local Austin politics.

At this morning's hearing, UT and their representatives (led by Fenves) testified that it was in the interest of everyone involved to respect the wishes of the original donor.  Furthermore, they testified that this could lead to remittance clauses being inserted into all future gifts, but not just gifts to them.  Thus, there could be unintended consequences in any number of areas where a future legislature might invent a future jurisdictional claim.  But here's the thing [Note: we can't believe we're about to say this]: UT's argument isn't entirely crazy.  Who's to say how a future legislature in 10 or 20 years would interpret this action?!?  Does the legislature really want to create this precedent?!?  Tread carefully....

As to our personal testimony: we gave the same schpiel we give any time the "Save MUNY" issue comes up.  In a city with a chronic housing shortage, it strikes us as absurd to place artificial restrictions on prime real estate that presently hosts a golf course.  If UT wants to sell this particular tract of land to developers...that would be a good thing!

Rep. Ernest Bailes attempted to obfuscate by asking a straw-man question about whether we would apply the same logic to Central Park in New York City.  While Bailes question was a curveball we didn't expect, we replied that midtown Manhattan doesn't have the 6000-square foot lot size requirements that Central Austin has, and that his question was irrelevant as long as that distinction applies.  That being said, having had a few hours to digest Rep. Bailes question, if we were offered the deal of leaving the Muny tract alone in exchange for upzoning the surrounding neighborhood...we would take it.

Making matters worse: Lyle Larson (who's carrying the bill in the House), used his closing argument as an opportunity to throw Wallace Hall under the bus.  Rather than addressing the issues, Larson reminded the committee of his role in the Wallace Hall impeachment and reminded the room "I have been sued by a UT regent."  If there weren't already enough reasons to shoot this bill down on the merits, hearing the bill sponsor cite his role in that disgraceful fiasco makes us oppose it all the more.

Bottom Line: We hope this bill dies....

-----

Note: During the Senate hearing, we criticized the Texas Exes for their lack of attention to this issue; giving credit where it's due, they had a significant presence at today's hearing.

-----

#TXLEGE SB 822: A TERRIBLE Bill for Austin's Housing Costs....

"Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things? Or is your eye evil because I am good?"
Matthew 20:15

[Author's Note: The Statesman has a good write up this morning's hearing here.]

There's a bill we've been keeping an eye on for several weeks about which we have yet to comment, but considering that it got a hearing this morning, now is a good time.

SB 822 is a weird attempt to get the legislature involved in a West Austin land dispute that's been simmering for at least a decade.  To be honest, we have no idea why the legislature chose to but in this session.  While we have no specific knowledge, considering the neighborhood involved, we suspect there's a lobbyist who's also a participant in the land dispute.

At the heart of the issue is a tract of land (sidenote: What else is new in Texas?!?) on which is currently situated the Lions Golf Course.  The golf course is operated by the city of Austin while the land is owned by the University of Texas system.  That being said, given its proximity to downtown and various other popular locations, this tract is a prime candidate for residential construction in a city that needs to build 150,000 units of new housing over the next decade.

Because it's such a prime location for housing construction, from time to time UT has looked into selling (or long term ground leasing) the property to various developers...which of course doesn't sit well with the anti-growthers at the Austin Neighborhoods Council.  This has led to the disingenuous and tiresome "Save Muny" campaign in West Austin.  With UT's lease with the city set to expire in 2019, ANC is clearly trying to pre-empt a public discussion of the property.

Which brings us to Estes' bill.  SB 822 would transfer the property from the UT system (who might eventually allow hosing (in our city that needs to build 150,000 new units)) to the state of Texas' Parks and Wildlife department.  The P&W department could be expected to keep the property as a municipally run golf course for the indefinite future.

And, of course, keeping the property as a municipally run golf course will permanently remove almost a 150 acres of prime real estate from the housing stock.

Bottom Line: For this website to come down on the same side as UT on an issue before the legislature should tell you a lot about the unusual nature of this situation, but leaving the status quo in place is the best possible outcome for everyone except a few vocal anti-growthers in West Austin.

-----

Note I: We didn't want to dilute the arguments on the merits above with an ideological tangent, but it's also worth pointing out that no city has any business running any golf course at any time.

-----

Note II: Where the heck are the Texas Exes on this one?!?  For as much as they loved to play the "the legislature shouldn't micromanage universities" card  during discussions of any attempts to hold Bill Powers accountable for all his misdeeds over the years, this actual attempt to micromanage the university's real estate doesn't seem to elicit a peep.  They're the one group that could probably kill this thing if they got involved...so we hope they do.

The most important step #TXLEGE can take to rein in ever-increasing housing costs....

"They shall build houses and inhabit them;
They shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit."
Isaiah 65:21

We finally got around to reading the paper on land-use restrictions that TPPF released last year; the whole thing is worth a gander, but the following recommendation is, by far, the single most important step the legislature can take to rein in housing costs:

Strengthen statutory protections against regulatory takings in Sec. 2007.003, Government Code.

Although the Texas Constitution prohibits state and local governments from taking private property without adequate compensation, the judiciary has all but limited the provision’s application to physical intrusions and/or seizures. In the instance of a regulatory taking—that is when the government restricts an owner’s right to use his land, thereby markedly reducing its value—Texans have to rely on the Private Real Property Protection Act of 1995 for a remedy. Lawmakers, however, exempted municipalities from the Act’s reach, enabling them to impose heavy-handed restrictions on a parcel’s land use without ever having to worry about the costs inflicted on the owner and/ or prospective seller. By closing that exemption, and by applying the compensation requirement to municipal regulations that diminish a property’s value by at least 20 percent, the Texas Legislature would force local governments to confront and assess the real consequences of their land use and zoning policies. Local governments would still have the power to zone for compatible uses, but the worst manifestations of that power. In other words, those policies that have the gravest impact on housing development would be discouraged.

Read the whole thing here.

-----

It's worth pointing out that, before he became Lt. Governor, then-Senator Dan Patrick filed bills related to this subject (that died without a hearing)...which means an advocate exists in leadership.  Craig Estes filed a similar bill (that met a similar fate) last session.  We've heard rumors there will be a reprisal this session, but so far that appears to be more talk than action.

"Economic Development" -- A Debate on Corporate Welfare in Texas

"Dishonest scales are an abomination to the Lord,
But a just weight is His delight."
Proverbs 11:1

This afternoon TPPF hosted "Economic Development: A Debate on Corporate Welfare in Texas."  Speakers included Richard Corcoran (incoming speaker of the Florida House of Representatives), Senator Craig Estes, Bill Hammond of the Texas Association of Businesses, and Dean Stansel of the SMU Economics department.  We'll present our thoughts thematically rather than chronologically.

Term Limits:

During his opening remarks, Corcoran made an offhand comment about how eliminating various corporate welfare funds in Florida (including their equivalent of the enterprise fund) only came about because of the churn term limits forced upon their legislature.  The short version is that as the RINO's were forced to retire, they were replaced by conservatives until a critical mass was finally achieved in the past few years.  There's a lesson in there Texas would be wise to learn.

-----

Texas' "Uncompetitive" Property Tax system and "abatements":

Hammond argued that property tax "abatements" by school districts are essential for "large capital investment" because Texas' property tax system is, in the words of Bill Hammond himself, "uncompetitive."  Hammond was essentially arguing that, because high local property tax burdens eliminate the return on business investment, local jurisdictions (esp. school districts) need to be able to "abate" those taxes.  Hammond cited Louisiana as some sort of vague example of a state that does this successfully.

Of course, Hammond's newfound chagrin for Texas' "uncompetitive" property tax system was amusing to anyone who followed the last session of the Texas legislature.  Last session, alongside Team Straus, Hammond led an effort to obstruct Lt. Governor Patrick's property tax reform efforts. At the time, rather than fixing the property tax system, Hammond et. al. pushed a dopey scheme "alternative plan" to instead cut a sales tax nobody is complaining about.

Thankfully, several other panelists and audience members pointed out that the solution to an "uncompetitive" property tax system was to fix it for everyone, not create new carve outs for politically connected special interests.

In a separate piece of semi-related good news, Hammond announced he's leaving TAB at the end of the year; we'll help him pack.

One final note: Apparently, Hammond was once a Dubya gubernatorial appointee to the workforce commission, which means he's a Karl Rove crony...boy does that explain a lot.

-----

Sen. Craig Estes:

Senator Estes appeared genuinely torn.  We kept an eye on his body language throughout and he looked like...a guy legitimately wrestling with the issue.  A cynic might argue that he's an incumbent reading the writing on the wall in Dan Patrick's Senate.  An optimist could say that he's recently gotten wise to the issue.  Either way, we always welcome movement in our direction and encourage Senator Estes to discuss the issue with Konni Burton.

-----

Impact on Florida:

Corcoran pointed out that no company, or professional sports team, or film production outfit that threatened to leave Florida following their elimination of various corporate welfare programs has actually followed through and done so.

----

Bottom Line: Corporate welfare leads to the politically directed allocation of capital, which serves no positive economic purpose but undermines credibility for other aspects of economic liberty; Texas cannot eliminate all of it fast enough.

The Texas Response: Pastors, Marriage, & Religious Freedom

"The first one to plead his cause seems right,
Until his neighbor comes and examines him."
Proverbs 18:17

Pflugerville -- Last night, Texas Values hosted an event in Pflugerville to outline the state-of-play on religious liberty in Texas following the U.S. Supreme Court's lawless marriage ruling this past summer.  It highlighted how Churches can protect themselves in the current climate and discussed the Pastor Protection law that the legislature passed last session.  It was a solid start that needs to be build upon.

Jonathan Saenz (Texas Values):



Highlights:

• Several people have been fined and jailed over marriage.

• Houston 5 were attacked by Annise Parker.

• Dan Patrick: "No one should be compelled."

• Scott Sanford carried this bill in House.

• Pastor Protection law protects "religious ORGANIZATIONS."

• ACLU retracted their support for Federal RFRA after marriage decision.

• Pastor Protection Law covers religious hospitals.

Jeremy Dys (Liberty Institute):

Highlights:

• Plugs Ken Paxton -- Filed a pro-Religious Liberty brief at the Texas Supreme Court last week.

• "Religious liberty is broader than human sexuality."

• Define your mission in writing in your church documents.

• Detailed minutes of Church meetings CAN SAVE YOUR BACON in the event of a lawsuit.

• Learn more about protecting your Christian institution at ReligiousLibertyKits.com

Attorney General Paxton:

Highlights:

• Put out his opinion re: County Clerks within hours of SCOTUS decision.

• People of Faith are essential to keeping American "free and prosperous."

• Religious liberty is the first freedom for a reason.

• When we lose our moral compass, things go bad in a hurry.

• "Discrimination against Christians, or other people of Faith, is entirely unacceptable."

Senator Craig Estes:

Highlights:

• Our perilous times are different that First Century Christians or Christians in Syria.

• Pray for the Christians around the world.

• This isn't the hill the hard core leftists want to die on.

Pastor Panel:

[Note: Danny Forshee is the Pastor of this Author's Church.]



Highlights:

• If Christians abdicate politics, the Devil is pleased to take over.

• When you put God in charge, He takes over.

• Joe Gonzales tells a story about praying with his personal state rep.

• Pastor Danny: "To disagree does not mean to discriminate."

• Pastor Mike: Just voting isn't good enough.
• The Church has abdicated it's position.
• We need to participate in the process.
• "Had the Devil known what he was doing, he wouldn't have raised the issue."
• The Church in Texas is coming together (tells the story about preaching in inner-city Kileen)
• Texas is going to be a haven for the gospel.

Texas Senate's Planned Parenthood organ harvesting hearing

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you;
Before you were born I sanctified you;
I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”
Jeremiah 1:5

Abortion is always a difficult issue to discuss; even by the standards of the issue, however, today's Texas Senate hearing about organ harvesting and the recently released Planned Parenthood videos was astonishing.

Attorney General Paxton testified first.  For an hour, he outlined what his office's recently launched investigation has uncovered.  Investigators from the Texas Attorney General's office recently toured the "P.O.C." room at a Planned Parenthood facility in Houston.  'P.O.C' stands for 'product of conception'; Planned Parenthood couldn't even refer to their 'medical specimens' as children (Note: Abby Johnson later testified that when she worked at Planned Parenthood they would joke about calling it the 'pieces of children' room.).  Inside the 'P.O.C.' room, Planned Parenthood would store the remains of pre-born children in jars until they were ready to be transported for 'disposal.'  General Paxton testified that this particular facility 'discards' 260 pounds of 'medical waste' per week.

Following the testimony of several bureaucrats from state agencies, John Seago spoke on behalf of Texas Right to Life.  He explained how the raw footage from the Planned Parenthood sting mentions three facilities in Texas.  The Houston facility previously discussed by General Paxton was one of their largest "research" facilities in the country.  Seago also detailed how, despite improvements, Planned Parenthood was still eligible to collect subsidies from Texas taxpayers.  Seago restated Texas Right to Life's categorical opposition to any sort of 'medical research' on the carcasses of aborted children.

Abby Johnson followed Texas Right to Life.  She disputed the testimony one of the bureaucrats.  Whereas the bureaucrat testified that State inspections of abortion facilities are unannounced, Johnson said that when she worked at Planned Parenthood her facility was inspected during the same week of November every year.  This allowed the facility to scrub its records in anticipation of a visit from the state.  Johnson's testimony caused several D's to throw a tantrum over 'accusing a state employee of committing perjury.'  Of course, Johnson never accused the bureaucrat of lying, just being mistaken.  Upon being called to testify a second time, the bureaucrat admitted that she was discussing protocols as they exist on paper, not how they're carried out in real life.

Carol Everett spoke after Johnson.  Her testimony largely mirrored Texas Right to Life and Johnson.  The most notable part came when she discussed a medical procedure her mother had recently undergone.  As part of the procedure, the doctor recommended using placenta.  Everett was horrified.  As part of the discussion, the doctor explained that 'tissue' obtained via abortion was useless for either medical research or treatment because abortions rarely take place in sanitary conditions.

:This author found Johnson's and Everett's the most eye-opening.  The two former abortion industry workers discussed the number abortions performed on a daily basis.  Johnson said a Houston clinic in which she worked had a DAILY quota of 75 abortions, which extrapolates to 450 per week and 1800 per month.  Everett said she performed oversaw 35,000 abortions (spread among several clinics) over six years in the industry, which translates to approximately 20 per day.  That's not a medical procedure. , That's not "safe legal and rare."  That's genocide.

Finally, Cahnman's Musings would like to commend Senator Lois Kolkhorst (R-Brenham).  Visibly shaken by what she was hearing, Kolkhorst nonetheless managed to ask probing questions that cut to the heart of the matter.  Chairman Charles Schwertner (R - Georgetown) also deserves credit for running a diligent, focused, hearing.  On the other hand, Senators Sylvia Garcia (D - Houston), Jose Rodriguez (D - El Paso), and Carlos Uresti (D - San Antonio) all admitted they hadn't watched the videos.  Senator Craig Estes (R - Whichita Falls) failed to show up at the hearing at all.

Planned Parenthood refused to participate in today's hearing, though their lawyer eventually showed up to deliver written testimony.

It's hard to imagine that pre-born children are being dismembered for profit here in Texas.  Unfortunately, today's hearing made clear that that's exactly what's happening.  This must stop.

"About Rinaldi's Amendment": An Open Letter to Craig Estes

"and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."
Revelation 22:19

The Honorable Craig Estes
Texas Senate
1100 Congress Ave
Austin, TX 78701

Dear Senator Estes,

During third reading for HB 910, Representatives Harold Dutton and Matt Rinaldi added an amendment that would protect the fourth amendment rights of citizens lawfully open carrying a handgun that passed the Texas House with over 130 votes.

I am writing you today to ask you to ensure this amendment makes it through the conference process.

Absent the Rinaldi/Dutton amendment, police would have the authority to harass citizens lawfully carrying openly.  The Rinaldi/Dutton amendment requires police to use the same "reasonable suspicion" standard they use when they suspect other criminal behavior.  It's not difficult to see how, with the wrong cop having a bad day, the possibility for abuse exists.

Contrary to hysterical media reports, the Rinaldi/Dutton amendment is not a backdoor attempt to pass Constitutional Carry (we wish that it were).

Thank you for your consideration.

Adam Cahn
Austin, TX

Which Texas Senate Republicans are defending Travis County's DA?!?

"The adversaries of the Lord shall be broken in pieces;
From heaven He will thunder against them.
The Lord will judge the ends of the earth.

“He will give strength to His king,
And exalt the horn of His anointed.”
1 Samuel 2:10

Update (3/31/2015): The Houston Chronicle reports that Eltife's colleagues have fingered him out while Seliger has confessed; Empower Texans has more here.

Hmm:

A Republican bill to transfer the Public Integrity Unit out of Travis County is snagged in the Senate, where the legislation does not have enough support to force a floor vote.

News that Senate Bill 10 has been blocked came in a Monday letter by state Sen. Kirk Watson, D-Austin, to Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who presides over the Senate and who has made moving the Public Integrity Unit out of the Travis County District Attorney’s Office a legislative priority.

....

Legislation must have support from 19 senators to allow a floor vote — a requirement that was lowered from 21 votes at the start of the session to let the body’s 20 Republicans move forward on GOP priorities. Watson’s letter indicates that at least two Republicans are not on board with SB 10.

[Author's Note: Emphasis Added.]

While the article never identifies the Republican holdouts, common sense guided by history (combined with the fact that Craig Estes and Troy Fraser voted for the bill in committee) leads one to conclude that Kevin Eltife and Kel Seliger are the likeliest suspects.

Senator Kevin Eltife: (512) 463-0101; @KevinEltife
Senator Kel Seliger: (512) 463-0131; @KSeliger

Texas and Immigration: State Solutions to a National Challenge

"Do not remove the ancient landmark,
Nor enter the fields of the fatherless;"
Proverbs 23:10

Because, yah, this isn't controversial:

Craig Estes:

• Situation in South Texas is "terrible"
• Washington D.C. created this problem and they're the only ones who can solve it.
• It's one of their enumerated powers in the Constitution.
• "The Feds owe us a half a Billion dollars (at least)."
• Border security and immigration policy are related, but they're different animals.

JoAnn Fleming:

• "The rule of law has been abandoned in the United States."
• If we continue to degrade the rule of law, we're going to end up with the same problems they have in Europe.
• DPS is just as vulnerable as Border Patrol.
• State presence helps, but it's still wide open on the border.
• Eliminate every single magnet that attracts illegals
• Including repeal of In-State tuition
• "It is time for Republicans to either put up or shut up and go home."

Alex Nowrasteh (Cato Institute):

• Current immigration mess was designed by labor unions.
• There is no green card available for a low skilled worker to come legally unless they're closely related to an American citizen.
• Three actions Texas Can Take
• Welfare Reform
• E-verify - Expensive, inefficient, and not particularly effective
• If it works, it hurts the economy; if it doesn't work, it hurts the economy.
• Guest worker visas
• You can't regulate a black market.

Paul Workman:

• Proposing "Texas Border Patrol" next session.
• Immigration will take care of itself down the line, but for now the focus is on Border Security.