“I’m not happy with the strategy that [Cruz] has come up with,” Collins told reporters. “I think it’s counterproductive and will have the end result of causing nominees who I think are not well-qualified to be confirmed. So I don’t understand the approach that he is taking. I think it’s very unfortunate and counterproductive.”By Sunday afternoon, of course, the notion that Obama got people confirmed because of you had been shot down. But the fact that so many were so willing to go along with something so easy to disprove was, by itself, revealing. That the legacy GOP was myopic enough to insult their own voters is their problem, not ours.
YCT Applauds Senator Schwertner on Tuition Deregulation Bill
AUSTIN, TX — Today, Young Conservatives of Texas (YCT) applauded State Senator Charles Schwertner for filing SB 233, bringing attention to the issue of tuition deregulation and skyrocketing tuition costs.
In 2003, the State of Texas faced a $10 Billion shortfall. As a way to mitigate cuts to higher education funding, the Legislature passed ‘tuition deregulation’ (HB 3015) which authorized unelected university boards of regents to set tuition rates, instead of the democratically elected legislature.
Since the passage of this bill, tuition rates have more than doubled and designated tuition has increased 222 percent.
“There is no issue we’ve had to educate elected officials and candidates on more than tuition deregulation,” said YCT State Chairman Jeff Morris. “Most assume it is a good conservative policy because it has the word 'deregulation' in it, but the name is a misnomer at best.”
At the time of passage, those in support argued the bill was justified based on the increasing value of a college education.
“A degree from UT or A&M is worth a lot of money and students may have to pay more for it through tuition deregulation,” said Rep. Fred Brown (R – Bryan). “If you get the best education, it’s going to cost a little extra money and there’s no way around it.”
Even the conservative Speaker of the House, Tom Craddick, thought the policy made sense.
“I don’t think this bill will shut anyone out of our higher education,” said Craddick. “Universities need flexibility, I don’t think all of them are going to go to the maximum.”
Craddick's support of the bill and decision to add $500 million to the Higher Education budget in exchange for its passage drew harsh criticism from YCT, who opposed tuition deregulation even in 2003.
"Speaker Craddick is attempting to insert complete and immediate tuition deregulation after both the House and Senate rejected wholesale tuition deregulation," said then YCT State Chairman David Rushing.
Some legislators had doubts about the bill and foresaw that its effects on students could be drastic.
“Universities would cater to the very rich and the very poor, and the middle class would be left out in the cold,” said Rep. Sylvester Turner (D – Houston). “We should not balance the budget on the backs of middle-class families.”
“Our position at Texas Tech has been that we’re in favor of some flexibility, but we’re really opposed to total deregulation,” said Texas Tech Regent Robert Brown. “As tuition continues to increase, universities could control enrollment by raising tuition and keeping students out who cannot afford higher payments.”
For years, this issue has been at the top of YCT's legislative priorities, but has not received much attention.
Last week, Senator Schwertner wrote a heartfelt piece about putting an end to tuition deregulation. In the editorial, he argued that because student loans are so readily accessible, inflated cost is a major reason for the huge increase in student loan debt across our state.
“In the fall of 2003, a resident undergraduate attending class full time paid $1,934 per semester in tuition and fees. A decade later, the same student owed an average of $3,951 per semester,” said Schwertner. “Are we really expected to believe that the value of an undergraduate degree is worth twice what it was only a decade ago?”
As a solution, Schwertner has filed SB 233 which caps the amount a university can raise tuition to the previous year’s tuition rate plus inflation. Additionally, it prohibits universities from raising fees more than the previous year plus inflation without student approval.
“We are very proud of Senator Schwertner for stepping up to the plate and taking on this issue,” continued State Chairman Jeff Morris. “We encourage his fellow legislators to sign on to the bill and push hard for its passage this coming Session.”
Young Conservatives of Texas is a non-partisan organization that has promoted conservatism at universities across the Lone Star State for over three decades. The State’s most active political youth organization, YCT is composed of hundredsof members and alumni who participate in the full spectrum of politics. YCT issues the most respected ratings of the Texas legislature and is the only conservative group to have done so without interruption over the past 20 legislative sessions. For more information about YCT, please visit www.YCT.org.
LOBBYIST & LAW FIRM MONEY FLOWS TO FLANNIGAN CAMPAIGN
AUSTIN, TEXAS – Jimmy Flannigan’s December 8th campaign finance report shows that, in the aggregate, Armbrust & Brown PLLC attorneys and their spouses top the list as Flannigan’s single largest donor in the run-off reporting period. Armbrust & Brown-related contributions account for $6,775 of Flannigan’s contributions, or nearly two times than the total of all reported direct PAC contributions. Armbrust & Brown claims “a particular expertise in complex real estate transactions, construction and development,” which alone could explain their support for Flannigan’s platform of “more thoughtful planning of future developments” in Austin. However, a series of successful suits by Flannigan’s opponent, Don Zimmerman, that exposed Armbrust & Brown-provided legal advice as against the interests of the residents of the MUD it represented in Northwest Austin could be an additional motivating factor.
- $6,775 in contributions from Armbrust & Brown attorneys and spouses reported by Flannigan, nearly 17% of $41,059.19 total reported run-off contributions.
- Direct PAC contributions to Flannigan total $3350. Independent PAC expenditures, reported and unreported, on behalf of Flannigan or against Zimmerman total at least $40,926.09
- Lobbyist contributors David Armbrust, Richard Suttle, Kevin Flahive, Michael Whellan, & Peter Cesaro bring additional contributions from notable real estate clients Endeavor Real Estate Group, Austin Board of REALTORS PAC, Austin Apartment Association PAC, & HPI Real Estate Services & Investment
Austinites may be familiar with the law firm of Armbrust & Brown due to high-profile partners-cum-registered city lobbyists David Armbrust and Richard Suttle. Flannigan reports that Armbrust, Suttle, and their spouses abided by the city ordinance-mandated $25 contribution limit triggered by their lobbying activities on behalf of Circuit of the America, Wal-Mart, and other special interests. But in concert with other Armbrust & Brown attorneys and their own spouses, firm-related contributions totaled nearly 17% of the total amount raised by District 6 candidate Jimmy Flannigan in the run-off.
- Flannigan platform includes “more thoughtful planning of future developments” and denounces successful Zimmerman-led suit to save taxpayers $18 million dollars after firing an Armbrust & Brown attorney who urged affected MUD residents to accept the tax as legal and constitutional.
As a lobbyist, David Armbrust reports 22 clients, representing primarily real estate development special interests. Richard Suttle admits to lobbying for a whopping 123 clients, again the vast majority of which are listed as real estate development and investment businesses. Armbrust & Brown attorney Kevin Flahive only boasts 3 lobbying clients, but 100% are in the business of real estate development. Like other lobbyists with ordinance-limited contributions to the Flannigan campaign, Armbrust & Brown lobbyists bring with them multiple maximum contributions to Flannigan from owners and employees of clients. Suttle’s clients include the Endeavor Real Estate Group, with related contributions totaling $1,400, and the Austin Board of REALTORS PAC, who reported a direct contribution of $350 and an independent expenditure of $15,540 on behalf of Flannigan.
While entrenched special interests will always support the candidate they feel is most likely to further their agenda, another reason for Armbrust & Brown’s staggering support of Jimmy Flannigan may be that District 6 candidate Don Zimmerman has gone toe to toe with the firm in the past on behalf of District 6’s Canyon Creek (the former Northwest Austin MUD #1) residents. The story is best told by lobbyist (and Flannigan contributor) Peter Cesaro’s own client, the Austin Chronicle. On December 5th, the Chronicle released a pro-Flannigan piece by Amy Kamp entitled “District 6 Waiting for the Next Subpoena.” Kamp writes, “As Zimmerman's opponent, Jimmy Flannigan, likes to point out, Zimmer man also has a penchant for ‘governance by lawsuit.’”
Flannigan has indeed made a pet campaign issue of Zimmerman’s lawsuits on behalf of taxpayers. One of the most notable Zimmerman championed lawsuit challenged the legality of the 1988 Canyon Creek MUD allocation contract that was certified as legal by an Armbrust & Brown attorney. Upon firing that same Armbrust & Brown attorney, who also purportedly represented the Canyon Creek MUD, Zimmerman secured a new legal team and filed suit on behalf of the MUD. The case was won at the 3rd Court of Appeals, allowed to stand by the Texas Supreme Court, and saved Canyon Creek-area residents $18 million in property taxes. Austin voters like David Gray, a Zimmerman supporter with a Democratic voting record, expressed disappointment that “Austinites may never know if Flannigan, absent Ambrust & Brown and other lobbyists’ financial support, would continue to be so fixated on Zimmerman’s willingness to champion taxpayer interests over special interests.” But, as Zimmerman responded, “the next time District 6 residents drive past the familiar litany of colorful signs proclaiming “Flannigan can fix it!” they may do well to ask themselves, ‘Fix what, and for whom?’”
