National groups playing in Texas, Texas groups playing in Washington, and the congressional campaign season begins.• Several Texas groups are gearing up, again, for judicial confirmation hearings that might include the appointment of Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen. The locals -- a combination of Texas outfits and the Texas affiliates of national groups that bills itself as the Texas Ad Hoc Coalition on Judicial Nominees -- are trying to fire up supporters who'll write to U.S. Sens. John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison to tell them to leave the Senate's filibuster rules alone. Democrats in the Senate have used those rules -- or the threat of them -- to stall a dozen of George W. Bush's judicial nominees, including Owen. They told reporters they don't really have much hope of swaying Cornyn and that they think they've got slightly better chances with Hutchison -- they got that reading from her disapproval of J. Leon Holmes of Arkansas. Their real hopes, they said, are pinned on convincing Republican senators from other states. • National groups trying to knock off U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land, are running television ads in and around Houston kicking the Texas Republican for ethics lapses they say are evidence of deeper problems in Congress. Two groups -- Campaign for America's Future and the Public Campaign Action Fund -- are running commercials in DeLay's congressional districts and in the districts of three congressmen they say are key to whether the House does anything to rebuke the Texan. And in a model that worked for groups on the left and right during the last election campaign, their ads online are linked to their forms for raising money, to run more and raise more money and so on. Meanwhile, a coalition of conservative groups has formed up to defend DeLay. The groups say they're not trying to get DeLay to resign from Congress, but want him to give up the leadership post. They're running about $75,000 in commercials on cable networks in his district. • Rep. Richard Raymond, D-Laredo, is raising money for his exploratory campaign for Congress, and says that's a legal loophole in the law that prohibits Texas lawmakers from raising money during legislative sessions. It's a federal race, not a state race, he says, knocking down a press-release complaint from U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Laredo. Raymond went to Dallas for his first funder in that possible challenge race; the notice said, "Contributions are appreciated, but not required." Among the hosts: state Reps. Rafael Anchia, Yvonne Davis, and Terri Hodge, all with D-Dallas suffixes, and Aaron Peña, D-Edinburg; former U.S. Rep. Martin Frost, former Dallas mayor Ron Kirk and a mess of other Dallas politicos. A political consultant to Cuellar said Raymond is "trading on his state job to raise money." Raymond says it's all legal and said Cuellar is scared "because these are real Democrats." He hasn't decided on a challenge to Cuellar yet, and says he'll give all of the federal contributions back if he decides not to run.

Neither side of the gambling issue is ready to call it a day.Gambling opponents, who now include the odd couple of Tina Benkiser and Charles Soechting, the leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties, respectively, held a rally at the Capitol to say they don't think slot machines and casinos are the best ways to fund the state budget. And gambling proponents are promoting the idea of letting voters decide. In fact, that's the name of their website: www.LetTheVotersDecide.com . They've unwrapped a report by Texas economist Ray Perryman that says casinos would produce $5.5 billion every two years for the state and would produce 200,000 jobs. The report is on the website. At the same time, another group pulled out a report -- also by Perryman -- that says video lottery terminals, or VLTS (slot machines, to us natives) at Texas racetracks would create 26,073 jobs and bring in $1.2 billion in annual state revenues. The theory is that when those three big bills collide -- the budget, school finance reform and taxes -- those gambling numbers will look better and better.

Gov. Rick Perry hit the bricks this week to talk to House members about appraisal caps, among other things, but the votes still aren't there and the issue was delayed for a second week.Rep. Dwayne Bohac, R-Houston, had his legislation on the House's calendar once, but it was knocked aside by a real, live technical problem and by a quieter political one; the bill was flawed but fixable in the first case, and short of votes in the second. With the first problem patched, it now appears that the constitutional amendment is short of the two-thirds support it needs to clear the House. The legislation would lower limits on allowable annual increases in taxable property values to 5 percent from 10 percent, and would impose that cap on residential, commercial and other properties. Perry, who's been calling for a 3 percent cap for two legislative sessions, says he still likes the idea and he told reporters he disagrees with city, county, and other local officials who form the opposition. "The fact of the matter is that this is not limiting them in any way. It's asking them to ask the public for approval to spend above a certain amount," he said. And he said he thinks the House and Senate will eventually approve the caps: "I think it is a popular item that the public is for, and so I think they'll have a vote and we'll get it done." Local officials don't like the caps for a variety of reasons and they've been hollering loud and hard at lawmakers since the beginning of the session. That's beginning to have some effect, and it's given new life to alternate legislation by Rep. Carl Isett, R-Lubbock, that leaves the appraisal caps alone while limiting growth of local government spending to three percent unless voters say more spending is okay.

Three dozen House members, including a number of Republicans, have added their names to legislation (HB 1348) that would prohibit so-called "issue and advocacy ads" in the last days before elections (but would allow them earlier in the election cycle).They'd outlaw issue ads funded by undisclosed contributors and narrow the definitions of how money donated by unions and corporations could be spent in politics. Those organizations would also be prohibited from giving to political action committees that aren't directly associated with the donors. Reps. Todd Smith, R-Bedford, and Craig Eiland, D-Galveston, were the first on board. Now they've signed up more members and are trying to get a hearing for the bill, which was last seen waiting for attention from a subcommittee. The new co-sponsors, grouped by party: Democrats: Rafael Anchia, Dallas; David Farabee, Wichita Falls; Scott Hochberg, Houston; Mark Homer, Paris; Elliott Naishtat, Austin; Aaron Peña, Edinburg; Eddie Rodriguez, Austin; and Mark Strama, Austin. Republicans: Fred Brown, College Station; Dennis Bonnen, Angleton; Scott Campbell, San Angelo; Carter Casteel, New Braunfels; Warren Chisum, Pampa; John Davis, Houston; Joe Driver, Garland; Gary Elkins, Houston; Dan Flynn, Van Horn; Charlie Geren, Fort Worth; Toby Goodman, Arlington; Tony Goolsby, Dallas; Bob Griggs, North Richland Hills; Pat Haggerty, El Paso; Rick Hardcastle, Vernon; Charlie Howard, Sugar Land; Delwin Jones, Lubbock; Terry Keel, Austin; Jim Keffer, Eastland; Edmund Kuempel, Seguin; Brian McCall, Plano; Tommy Merritt, Longview; Jim Pitts, Waxahachie; Wayne Smith, Baytown; John Smithee, Amarillo; and Vicki Truitt, Keller.

The House's budget, while smaller than the Senate version, also calls for a serious increase in state spending.If the Democrats and renegade Republicans hold enough votes to block gambling, it could put management into a fiscal corner. Without expanding gambling to raise new money from so-called "voluntary taxes," the confederation of budgeteers, tax wonks and public education wizards will have to pull together a package of revenue, spending and reform that all fits neatly into a balanced budget. The budget section took another step forward, and Appropriations Chairman Jim Pitts, R-Waxahachie, will give the full House a dose of spending next week. The House Appropriations Committee would spend $137.5 billion overall, compared with the Senate's bottom line of $139.3. Both numbers are up significantly from the tight budget approved two years ago, and both include only some of the money that'll be needed if the state is going to put more into public education. They're closer together on general revenue spending -- the part funded by state taxes and other revenues -- which totals $65.9 billion in the House version and $66.2 billion in the Senate blueprint. Two big differences: The Senate has a pay raise for state employees in its bill, and the House does more of its public education spending in the budget than in the school finance bill. And the House budget isn't really as frugal, compared to the Senate, as it first seems. The lower chamber spends a negative amount -- $1.9 billion, in accounting parentheses -- in Article 9, the "general provisions" section of the budget. The Senate version has a positive number -- $662.1 million -- in that section. That's because the House put public education and child protective services reforms into its supplemental budget bill, a smaller measure meant to cover any spending gaps that have developed in the current budget. When you put the House budget and its supplemental bill against the Senate's plans, the differences are less stark. The differences will be settled, as usual, in conference committee after the full House votes and the Senate respectfully disagrees with that plan. Taxes, as we've noted, are in the hands of the Senate, where Finance Chair Steve Ogden, R-Bryan, plans to take the rest of the month hearing testimony and tinkering. Senate Education Chair Florence Shapiro, R-Plano, has already begun similar hearings on school finance and education reforms. The three bills probably won't reach the crucial intersection where they have to be reconciled with each other until May. That's when the real numbers emerge, showing the size of the budget, the school finance reforms, and the revenue bills that pay for them.

Live and in living color, senators acting like senators:``See it in Windows Media or in Quicktime.
This video, shot by a crew working for Gov. Rick Perry's political campaign, shows U.S. Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, and Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-New York, exchanging pleasantries at a fundraiser for restoring an historic building in Washington, D.C. Luis Saenz with the Perry campaign says he shared it with a couple of consultants and that it spread from there to other Perry supporters via email. While some in the Perry camp made hay of Hutchison getting kudos from the unpopular (in Republican Texas) Clinton, some in the Hutchison camp were making hay of Perry's early efforts to discredit a possible challenger in next year's GOP primary for governor.

Democratic leaders in the House say they're against gambling as a way to finance public education or to fill holes that might appear in the state budget.It'll take a constitutional amendment -- and thus, 100 votes from Texas House, 21 in the Senate, and a majority from Texas voters -- to add slot machines to racetracks or to allow casinos in the state. The issue might not ever get to the second and third hurdle. Four top Democrats in the Texas House -- Garnet Coleman of Houston, Jim Dunnam of Waco, Pete Gallego of Alpine, and Scott Hochberg of Houston -- say they're against adding gambling to the state's revenue mix right now. If they've got even a small number of their colleagues on board, that's it for new gambling this session. Do the math. The House has 87 Republicans, including a faction estimated at two dozen or so who say they're against gambling no matter what. Actual mileage may vary -- we've talked to members who count anything from 45 to 65 GOP votes for gambling. With those numbers gambling supporters need at least 35 Democrats on their side, and as many as 55, to prevail in the lower chamber. Even a subset of the Democratic contingent could block gambling. Though they say they're speaking only for themselves, Dunnam heads the House's Democratic Caucus, Coleman heads the Black Caucus, and Gallego heads the Mexican-American Caucus. Hochberg doesn't head any particular group, but he's the leading voice on public education among House Democrats. Proponents will have to peel Democratic votes away from Democratic leaders; not impossible, but it raises the difficulty of passing a gambling measure during this session.

Legislative retirement benefits are based on a formula that includes the salary of district judges, who might be in line for their first pay raises in seven years.The basic setup -- it changes according to benefit choices made by each legislator -- is to multiply that judicial salary by 2.3 percent, an arbitrary number set in statute, and to multiply that by a lawmaker's years of service. Judges now make $101,700 (some make more, by local option, but that's not part of the formula). Lawmakers have to serve at least eight years to qualify for retirement at age 60; if they serve 12 years or more, they can begin drawing state retirement after age 50. The Senate's pay raise for judges would increase lawmakers' retirement benefits by the same percentage. That bill, authored by Sen. Robert Duncan, R-Lubbock, is on its way to the House. Based on the current judicial salary, each lawmaker gets $2,339.10 in retirement pay for each year served in the Legislature. If Duncan's bill raising judicial pay to $125,000 passes in its current form, legislative benefits will jump that same 22.9 percent; each retired lawmaker would get up to $2,875 in annual retirement pay for each year served. A retired lawmaker with 20 years experience can now draw $46,782 in benefits each year. If the Senate version of the judicial pay bill becomes law, that amount would increase to $57,500 annually. Duncan had hoped to avoid political problems that can crop up when lawmakers sweeten their own benefits by tying the lawmaker retirements to the governor's salary instead of to judicial pay. But he got his fingers burned: legislative budgeteers have proposed raising the governor's pay to $150,000, which would have meant a 47 percent increase in retirement pay was included in the state budget. He moved it back to judicial pay, and to the smaller increase.

U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison isn't the only Republican in Texas who has consorted with Democrats, or for that matter, with Hillary Clinton.After the Air Kiss video turned up, the Houston Chronicle came up with a 1993 letter from then-Texas Agriculture Commissioner Rick Perry to then-First Lady Clinton. In the letter (click here for a copy in .pdf format), Perry commended Clinton for her "worthy" efforts to reform health care and asked her to be mindful of agriculture interests while working on it. His folks say it's not a bid deal. Her folks say the video doesn't show people anything but Normal Senatorial Behavior. And there you have it. Want to guess at the next rounds of "Who's true blue, er, Red?" Perry was the 1988 state campaign chairman for Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore Jr., who was trying to win his party's nomination to run against then Vice President George H. W. Bush (honors, of course, went to Michael Dukakis). And if you want to drag the other potential candidate in to the mix, Carole Keeton Strayhorn appeared, as the mayor of Austin, at events for Walter Mondale, who was running against President Ronald Reagan in 1984. Both Perry and Strayhorn were Democrats at that time; they changed parties and ran for statewide office later. If you missed it in our earlier posting, the video of Clinton and Hutchison is available online in two formats: Quicktime and Windows Media