[updated version] The Senate's version of the tax bill is still percolating, to put it most politely, and it's unlikely the public will get a peek until next week.Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst told a herd of reporters that the Senate's school finance/reform bill could be out of committee early next week with a possible floor vote late next week, but he didn't promise anything. The tax bill that raises state revenues enough to cover the costs of buying down local school property taxes will be right behind it, he said, without saying, "Scout's Honor." The Senate Finance Committee could see a bill on Monday, he said; if they're quick about it, a floor vote could follow quickly behind the school finance bill. That would leave about four weeks in the regular session for reconciliation of expected big differences between what the House passed earlier and what the Senate is willing to approve. Dewhurst's line is familiar to anyone who has been following this: "We're looking at a flat low-rate tax where everybody is in the same boat... I don't think there's a will here in the Senate to increase sales taxes as much as the House did." He wouldn't go further into detail on the Senate plan or into what components of the House plan are unacceptable to the upper chamber. Senators and lobsters who've seen the plan, or pieces of it, say it's still got a business activity tax -- the rate hasn't gelled -- and a half-cent sales tax, and a 50-cent increase in the tax on a pack of cigarettes, and a tax, probably, on alcoholic beverages. They've got the comptroller's office running numbers in an effort to avoid the embarrassment the House suffered after it voted out an unbalanced tax bill. That's a form of insurance, but it slows things down. And business groups are lobbying for something closer to what the House already passed. They like the idea of choosing the lower of two business taxes, and many would come out better with the House plan than with almost any alternative being considered on the other end of the building. The House is trickling revenue legislation out of committees to rest in the Calendars Committee, where agendas are set. The state property tax bill is sitting on the runway, and proponents of casino gambling are hoping to move their legislation into the takeoff queue. That first bill is, as we've written, a provocation aimed at the Senate. It's a centerpiece of the Senate's plan, and the House, according to Speaker Tom Craddick, is probably against it. Voting it down in the House would undermine the Senate's current efforts and force the upper chamber to come up with something else; holding it ready merely threatens to undermine those efforts. Craddick has local officials on his side; they don't like the idea of the state taking over most of the revenue end of school finance. But it has advantages: If schools are funded with a statewide tax instead of uneven local taxes in rich and poor districts, the inequities that keep landing the school system in court could be leveled out. And one key attack on the current system -- that it's illegal for the state to tell local districts how much tax money they have to raise for schools -- would evaporate. Dewhurst, however, treats it like a House problem: "I believe Speaker Craddick can pass what he wants to pass, so we'll have to wait to see if he has the votes." The second big item on the runway is a plain old gambling bill, and this is how they work: You advance the thing to a holding point, then check and recheck and recheck the votes on the floor of the House to see whether 100 mostly conservative politicos would prefer to violate their anti-gambling tendencies or their anti-tax tendencies. At the moment, the House already voted for a big tax bill, and gambling isn't a priority. But behind the scenes, the gambling lobby, some of the Pink Building's revenue seekers and other interested parties are getting things in place in case the environment changes. If the Lege comes to a point where some kind of gambling appears to be the best solution to school finance, it'll have a chance. If not, gaming measures will die as they usually do, in a committee wanting for a vote. The boosters hope to have gambling legislation idling in Calendars by the end of next week.

The Supremes can move quickly, but they don't have to.Lookit: More than a year ago, the Texas Association of Business asked the Texas Supreme Court to block lawyers prying into TAB's direct mail campaign in the 2002 legislative elections. The association said its advertising fell short of electioneering and said its donors' identities were protected from disclosure since those weren't election ads. The lawyers and candidates suing them contend the ads were designed to influence the outcomes of elections, both in their timing and content. The Supreme Court hasn't ruled for TAB, but apparent indecision by the judges has put the case on ice (they and their employees can't talk about pending writs, so there's no way to know exactly what's going on over there). A state district judge in Austin ordered TAB to produce the evidence sought by lawyers on the other side of a civil suit. TAB appealed to the 3rd Court of Appeals in Austin, and lost again. And on the last day of January 2004, attorney Andy Taylor, TAB's lawyer, appealed to the Supremes. The high court asked for some briefs and the lawyers finished with that on June 1 of last year. Court observers we talked to say it takes five judges to get the panel moving on a writ like the one filed by TAB, and the Supremes have been working with as few as seven judges over the last months. Now they've got nine. One possibility -- again, there's no knowing what's up -- is that the judges have one justice writing a "per curium" on the writ. There's no deadline for that, or for the court to move on the TAB case. In the meantime, there's no discovery in the civil case.

The U.S. House Majority Leader's side of the story, with cover letter, below, and the text of his explanation in the next post.Dear Friends and Supporters ? I want to thank all of you for your continued assistance and words of encouragement -- your thoughts, prayers, and advice have been of great value to me as we continue to work on furthering the ideals of lowering taxes for all Americans, strengthening our homeland security, winning the war on terror, and moving our country's economy forward. It should come as no surprise that following the 2004 election-year attacks on the President that the Democrats, their syndicate of third party organizations (Common Cause, Public Citizen, Move-On, etc.) and the legion of Democrat-friendly press would turn their attention to trying to retake Congress. It is abundantly clear that their fundamental strategy revolves around attacking me and working to tear down Republican leadership. Many of you have requested a "fact versus fiction briefing document" that can be shared via e-mail or in clubs, organizations, or groups you are affiliated with. It would be quite easy to write an entire book about how Democrats, and many in the press, have chosen to selectively report and strategically ignore many FACTS about me and my work as Congressman for the 22nd District. Rather than run the laundry list of unfounded attacks, I thought it would be helpful to briefly outline some recent issues and provide you with information that tells the real story. I think when you see the consistent pattern of information that has been largely ignored or unreported it will help you dispel any other unsubstantiated allegations. I am grateful to you and voters of the 22nd Congressional District for allowing me an opportunity to continue to serve you in Congress. The success we have had in electing other Republicans and passing legislation that is anathema to the 40 years Democrats controlled Congress is the main reason why these attacks are occurring. As always, I thank you for your support, welcome your advice, and look forward to seeing you soon. Take care and God Bless, Sincerely, Tom DeLay

The political chess players are talking about special sessions this summer, and many of them say it would be a bad idea.The premise here is that school finance and tax talks could break down. Not that they will, but that they might. What would happen? The state's school finance system has been declared illegal by a state district judge and the appeal is pending before the Texas Supreme Court. The justices asked the lawyers to file briefs, and that process draws to a close at the same time the regular legislative session comes to its end. They could hear the case within a week of Sine Die, if they're in a hurry. When they'd rule is anyone's guess, but a court in a hurry could put opinion to paper by the end of summer or early fall. In the meantime, the House and Senate currently appear to be singing different songs on taxes and schools. If they're still apart at the end of the session, what good would it do Gov. Rick Perry to bring them right back? A special session a year ago on this subject produced nothing, and it doesn't do anyone any good to compound a failure. On the other hand, you can't get a deal if you don't force talks. Gov. Bill Clements pulled lawmakers back twice in 1989 to get a workers' compensation insurance deal, and called them back four more times in that same interim to solve another issue: School finance. Eventually, lawmakers gave him both bills to sign.

The Texas Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the school finance case on July 6, just about a month after the Legislature's regular session ends. That's not dependent on what lawmakers do to try to reform the system, unless they get something so good that the school districts that filed suit drop their arguments. Nothing of that sort has surfaced.The Texas Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the school finance case on July 6, just about a month after the Legislature's regular session ends. That's not dependent on what lawmakers do to try to reform the system, unless they get something so good that the school districts that filed suit drop their arguments. Nothing of that sort has surfaced. The court earlier set briefing deadlines, and the lawyers in the case are supposed to have all the paper fighting completed by May 31. The current system is unconstitutional, according to a state district judge in Austin who heard arguments about the mix of funding, the distribution of money, and adequacy of the education kids in Texas are getting from the government. The prospect of a hearing in July could influence decisions about special sessions this summer. If lawmakers work out a compromise on school finance and the taxes that go with it, that's moot. But if they don't -- which seems more likely given the current discord between the House and Senate -- Gov. Rick Perry will have to decide whether a special session would force a solution or just compound the state's failure to patch the system over the last two years. The timing for a special, if there is one, would be tricky now that the court has set a date. The session ends on May 30. Perry has 20 days after that for signatures and vetoes and such -- that's June 19. Calling the Legislature back into session while that's going on would be a rare thing; governors typically don't want lawmakers (and their ability to override vetoes) hanging around during that three-week period. Calling the Legislature back to Austin doesn't make much sense if you wait past early to mid-summer, since the school year starts in August and the current finance system will already be locked in for another school year. Perry has the most at risk. Governors get blamed when things don't get done, and often when they do get done. If voters are worked up about school finance, failure to get a fix could hurt him (as could a tax bill, if the Legislature chooses a fix unpopular with voters). Legislators probably skate if school finance doesn't get repaired right away. The governor would get credit for a win and blame for a loss, and most lawmakers will escape that. The justices on the Texas Supreme Court are in an interesting spot. Five of them -- Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson, and Justices Nathan Hecht, Phillip Johnson, David Medina, and Priscilla Owen -- are on the ballot next year and school finance could easily become an issue in those elections. A Supreme Court ruling in the fall -- if it goes against the state -- could set up those contests and put the heat on Perry to call a special session on school finance right before the primary season starts. In its notice of the July hearing, the court listed some of the issues raised in the briefs filed by the state and the groups suing the state: • Whether the school districts? claims are legal questions appropriate for courts or political questions properly left to the Legislature. • Whether the school districts have enforceable rights to sue under the state constitution (Article VII, Section 1). • Whether the school districts have standing to claim injury under the state constitution (Article VII, Section 1, or Article VIII, Section 1-e). • Whether the state school-finance law violates the constitutional prohibition against a state property tax. • Whether inequity in the state's maintenance and operations financing violates the state constitution (Article VII, Section 1). The Edgewood appellants specifically attack the trial court's failure to apply a legal standard or make findings to support its conclusion that "disparity in access to revenue for maintenance and operations? did not violate Article VII, Section 1's efficiency mandate. If you just can't get enough of this school finance stuff, the briefs that have been filed so far are available online via these links (the school finance case includes three different lawsuits and three different case numbers): Cause number 04-1144
APPELLANT: SHIRLEY NEELEY, ET AL. APPELLEE: WEST ORANGE-COVE CONSOLIDATED INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. Cause number 05-0145
APPELLANT: WEST ORANGE-COVE CONSOLIDATED INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. APPELLEE: SHIRLEY NEELEY, TEXAS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION, ET AL. Cause number 05-0148
APPELLANT: EDGEWOOD INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. APPELLEE: SHIRLEY NEELEY, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS TEXAS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION, ET AL.

What follows is the full text of U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's memo to supporters giving the Texas Republican's version of events that have landed him in the headlines recently.Fact vs. Fiction: The Democrats' Case against Tom DeLay
Tom DeLay Has Never Been Found in Violation of Any Law by Anyone • Tom DeLay does not stand accused of any violation of any law or rule in any forum and has never been found to have violated any law or rule by anyone. • The Ethics Committee disposed of all matters but one (deferred at DeLay's request) without sanction. • Partisan DA Ronnie Earle has never even contacted Tom DeLay to appear as a witness.
Democrats and their Outside Front Groups are Colluding to Target DeLay • Democrats have made clear that their only agenda is the politics of personal destruction, and the criminalization of politics. • They hate Ronald Reagan conservatives like DeLay and they hate that he is an effective leader who succeeds in passing the Republican agenda. • This demonization of DeLay is not new: in the months leading up to the 2000 general election, the DCCC filed a racketeering lawsuit against DeLay, which was ultimately dismissed with prejudice by a federal judge. • The Democrats' plan, and their collusion with Democrat front groups, is well known: Breaking the ethics truce has been a high priority of good-government groups such as CREW, Public Citizen, Public Campaign, Common Cause, the Campaign Legal Center and Judicial Watch. The groups convened a meeting a month ago where they discussed strategy and divvied up tasks aimed at breaking the truce. For example, Mary Boyle of Common Cause was tasked with researching how the House had policed recent allegations of misconduct. Craig Holman of Public Citizen accepted the challenge of finding a lawmaker to file a complaint against DeLay. (The Hill, June 15, 2004, p. 1) • So yet again another Democrat leader and campaign chair have embarked on a similar campaign to demonize DeLay to distract the voters from the fact they have no agenda to offer for America. DCCC Chair Emanuel has announced that he intends to make ethical charges the touchstone of campaigns and would use several high-profile local races to create a national image of corruption in the GOP-controlled House.
The Ethics Committee Did Not Find that Tom DeLay Has Violated Any Rule The Bell Complaint • The Committee dismissed two of the allegations Bell made against DeLay and deferred the third at his request. Dismissed Count I (Westar): The information we obtained indicates that (1) neither Representative DeLay nor anyone acting on his behalf improperly solicited contributions from Westar, and (2) Representative DeLay took no action with regard to Westar that would constitute an impermissible special favor. (Memo of Chairman Hefley, p. 2). Dismissed Count III (DOJ/FAA Contacts on TX Redistricting): With regard to the [DeLay's staff's] contacts with the Justice Department, the information we have obtained indicates that they were not improper Instead, they consisted of a straightforward inquiry on whether there was any legal basis for DOJ to intervene [in the matter of the absent Texas legislators]. (Memo of Chairman Hefley, p. 37). Deferred Count II (TRMPAC) (at DeLay's request in accordance with Committee Rules when a matter is subject to regulatory or law enforcement review): [W]hatever Representative DeLay's role was in the TRMPAC activities challenged in Count II, his participation in those activities, if any, was not related to the discharge of his or her duties as a Member of the House. (Memo of Chairman Hefley, p. 32). The Nick Smith Complaint • Dismissed: The issues raised by the conduct of the Majority Leader in this matter are novel in that conduct of this nature and the implications of such conduct have never before been addressed or resolved by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Indeed, the Majority Leader's testimony indicates that he did not believe he acted improperly under House rules during his encounter with Representative Nick Smith. In addition, the Investigative Subcommittee believes that the relevant facts related to the Majority Leader's conduct described in detail in this Report already have been fully developed. In the view of the Investigative Subcommittee, these factors mitigate against further investigation and proceedings in this matter. (Oct. 4, 2004 Report, p. 43).
An "Admonishment" is Not a Sanction • Members, the media, and outside parties spun the "admonishments" as a formal sanction when it clearly was not any sanction. • Sanctions can only be levied after Informal Information Gathering, Investigative Subcommittee, Adjudicatory Subcommittee, and Sanction Hearing. • Sanctions include expulsion, censure, reprimand, fine, and denial of rights. • The Bell complaint was dismissed and never even went to the Investigative stage.
What the Committee DID Say to Tom DeLay: Moderate Your Future Behavior • The Committee sent him two letters containing informal warnings to be careful in the future for what it admitted were cases of first impression. • The verb "admonished" was used and is now exploited to mean some sort of sanction. • DeLay has only received two other such words of caution during a 20 year career.
The Only Person Found by the Committee to Have Violated the Rules was Chris Bell • The Committee stated that Bell's "complaint violated Committee Rule 15(a)(4) in a number of respects. Because you personally signed and this complaint and transmitted it directly to the Committee under Committee Rule 14(a)(1), you are responsible for the contents of the complaint in their entirety, and thus you are responsible for these violations." (Nov. 18, 2004 Letter of Hefley, p. 1) • Bell's complaint contained inflammatory language and exaggerated charges used for political advantage: "Indeed, it appears there is no purpose for including excessive or inflammatory language or exaggerated charges in a complaint except in an attempt to attract publicity and, hence, a political advantage. This improper political purpose was highlighted in this instance by the various efforts you undertook to promote your complaint publicly, by including such excessive or inflammatory language or exaggerated charges in press releases and other public statements." (Nov. 18, 2004 Letter of Hefley, p. 1) • It cannot be ignored that every one of the NINE counts of rules violations found by the Committee was raised by DeLay four months before the matter was disposed of. The actions of Bell, his staff, and a Democrat front group were contemptible of Congress. As the Ethics Committee stated, "it is highly improper, and a basis for the initiation of disciplinary action, for any House Member or staff person to attack the integrity of this Committee or any of its members." (Nov. 18, 2004 Letter of Hefley, p. 1)
The House Voted to Reform the House Ethics Rules in Fairness to all Members Changes to the Ethics Rules • The Chris Bell matter, as well as the Nick Smith matter, exposed serious concerns about the lack of transparency and accountability in the ethics process, as well as the lack of adequate due process for subjects of ethics complaints. • In the Nick Smith matter, several Members, including Reps. DeLay, Miller, Smith, Cunningham, and Dreier, were clearly denied due process and were never notified that they were targets of the investigation. • The Chris Bell matter further exposed the lack of due process in ethics matters, and further revealed how outside parties could insert themselves in the House's peer review system and exploit it for political purposes. • The reformed rules allowed for Members to choose their own counsel, instill due process for Members (by allowing Members to publicly plead their case), and to restore the presumption of innocence by requiring a majority vote to open an investigation. Changes to the Conference Rule Were Not Driven by Tom DeLay, but Tom DeLay did Personally Make the Request to Reinstate the Old Rule • The Conference Rule was changed last Congress in fairness to the Members who become the political targets of partisan prosecutors and Democrat-front groups. Democrats, be they Ronnie Earle or Chris Bell, should not determine who leads House Republicans. • Tom DeLay asked the Conference to reinstate the old rule at the beginning of this Congress after he felt the Democrats "who have never had any rule" were exploiting the reform for political purposes. DeLay said that while he saw the merit in the rule changed, he did not want the Democrats to use it as a distraction from the Republican agenda. Changes to the Make Up of the Ethics Committee Were in the Normal Course of House Business • Chairman Hefley was not "sacked" by leadership. Hefley was term limited and would have needed a waiver from the Speaker to remain as Chairman which to date has only been done on one occasion (for David Dreier of the Rules Committee). • The new Chairman, Doc Hastings, was the next senior Member in line for the gavel. • The Democrats refuse to let the Committee meet because they are still trying to politicize the ethics process and block the Committee from doing its work.
The Texas Matters Are About Politics, Not DeLay Texas Indictments: A Political D.A.'s Attempt to Criminalize Politics • The Austin District Attorney, Ronnie Earle, is a partisan Democrat who tries to undo with a grand jury what he can't stop at the ballot box. Under a peculiar Texas law, he has statewide jurisdiction over election law issues. • The indictment of three TRMPAC figures and eight corporate donors was a political dirty trick sprung 40 days before an election. • Since the 2002 elections, Earle has gone after people and entities he determined were involved in helping Republicans win elections in Texas. • Earle has a history of targeting political enemies including Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, whose case was dropped due to a lack of evidence. Texas has only recently become a Republican state, so Earle's claim that he prosecuted Democrats too is a red herring. • The indictments are based on an extreme interpretation of a highly ambiguous law being misused by 1) a highly partisan prosecutor; 2) who is soon to be on his fifth grand jury; 3) in this two-year investigative payback for Republicans winning in Texas. • Earle's investigation is about whether the Texas Election Code was violated through corporate fundraising. But Texas law allows corporate money to be raised for indirect political activity (as opposed to donations to candidates), which is what TRMPAC did. The Texas Civil Trials are "Sour Grape" Attempts by Failed Candidates to Get Rich Quick and Use the Legal System to Undue the Will of the People • The New York Times wrote, "The trial testimony has not tied Mr. DeLay to any illegality or suggested that he was involved in the details of the fund-raising efforts by the political action committee." (Phil Shenon, "Testimony at Texas Trial Focuses on Use of Donations," New York Times, March 3, 2005). • The Washington Post wrote, "during a related civil trial in Austin last week, DeLay's name repeatedly came up, but no evidence was presented that the veteran GOP leader had done anything wrong" Certainly there was little said in testimony during last week's civil trial that could harm him"The trial opened Monday with DeLay's name front and center. But by the close of the trial on Friday, the testimony presented showed DeLay's direct role in TRMPAC's successful bid to win the Republican takeover of the Texas House was mostly that of a figurehead and a casual adviser early on." (Mike Allen and Sylvia Moreno, "Prosecutor Balks When Asked If DeLay Is Target of Tex. Probe," Washington Post, March 6, 2005).
The Manufactured "Controversy" Surrounding DeLay"s Perfectly Permissible Travel The trip DeLay to Russia in 1997 and the United Kingdom in 2000 were proper according to House rules and guidance. • The Center invited DeLay on these trips, organized them, paid for them, sponsored them, and reported the costs to him (which he reported on both his 30 day travel disclosures and his Annual Financial Disclosures). The National Center issued a March 2 statement detailing these facts. • During the Russia trip, DeLay met with religious leaders and government officials. During the UK trip, he met with former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, the trade minister, the U.S. Ambassador, and members of the Scottish Conservative Caucus. • If the sponsor of a trip ultimately obtains funding for a trip, a Member is not and should not be responsible for that information. As Jan Baran, a well known ethics lawyer, stated in the Washington Post on March 12, "If somebody is doing some backdoor financing, how would the member know?" The trip DeLay took to Korea in 2001 was properly vetted and undertaken in accordance with House rules. • DeLay and two other Members were invited in 2001 to Korea by a charity. • At the time the invitation was extended, KORUSEC was not registered as a foreign agent. Two days before the trip, the group registered as a foreign agent but did not notify DeLay or any other Member of Congress. • Since 2001, numerous Members on both sides of the aisle have taken similar trips sponsored by KORUSEC, including a staffer for Nancy Pelosi.
There is Nothing Improper about a Members' Campaign or PAC Employing Family • Christine DeLay, Tom's wife, serves as CEO of ARMPAC. She provides big picture, long-term strategic guidance and help with personnel decisions. She is compensated accordingly based on the service she provides, which is public information filed with the FEC. • Dani DeLay Ferro, Tom's daughter, serves as his campaign manager. She is also a skilled and experienced professional event planner who assists ARMPAC in arranging and organizing individual events. She is compensated accordingly based on the service she provides, which is public information filed with the FEC. • FEC regulations specifically permit salary payments to family members where they are payments for "bona fide, campaign related services." 11 CFR 113.1(g)(1)(i)(H). In fact, the FEC issued an Administrative Opinion on this issue in response to Jesse Jackson Jr.'s request to employ his wife by his campaign. • Many high-profile Democrats have also employed family members on their campaigns: Howard Dean's brother has served as the chair of Dean's PAC, and both Joe Lieberman and Dick Gephardt's children have served as full time employees on their campaign payrolls.

The legislative session is reaching a point that's as reliable as the lunch horn in a factory: That moment when it appears that everything is definitely-for-sure-absolutely-certainly going to fall to pieces. Or not.The House-Senate wrangle over the budget is underway, but only one of the bills that goes into that mix has actually passed both houses. The rest of the mess -- either three bills in total, or five, depending on whether you include school finance and taxes -- is still in the pipeline. The House passed the last two bills, and also a "supplemental" appropriations bill that includes a lot of non-supplemental spending. Those three await Senate action. A fourth -- a House bill that includes something like $1.2 billion in budgetary hat tricks to help balance the spending -- is still in the House. Relations between the Speaker and the Lite Guv are tense, compounding the regular troubles that come with the end of every session. An example: Dewhurst said he talked to Craddick about un-sticking worker's compensation insurance legislation; Craddick responded by saying Dewhurst must have been talking to someone else. Another: Dewhurst, told of Craddick's comments that the House had problems with a key component of the Senate's tax package, told reporters the House will pass whatever Craddick wants it to pass, implying the problem wasn't with the other 149 members there. A semi-retired politician we know said the two are "talking through the newspapers." That's not a description of a good political relationship. Aides to Gov. Rick Perry say he's been working behind the scenes, but his public comments on the direction of legislation have been mild. He's not using the bully pulpit to push any agenda, but his chief of staff, Deirdre Delisi, recently asked lobbyists happy with the House's version of school finance and taxes to put up the money for an ad campaign promoting it. That was reported in The Dallas Morning News, and it's not clear now that it will go forward. (It wasn't clear before the reporting, to be fair, because the business people with the money had questions about the content of the ads and the propriety and politics of getting involved.) Perry could probably accomplish the same marketing run with a series of press conferences. Whatever the promotional efforts, the governor has to decide how to get the two halves of the Legislature working together before he can ask voters to support the union. And that's a problem right now.

Round Two of the wars to limit spending by local governments fell short in the Texas House. Legislation by Rep. Carl Isett, R-Lubbock, would have shaved the trigger on budget growth, requiring locals to seek voter approval of spending increases of more than five percent. But after some hostile amendments were added, he pulled it down until next week.Current law allows a voter referendum if a city council or some other local unit raises effective tax rates more than eight percent and if 10 percent of the registered voters sign a rollback petition calling for an election (it's six percent for school districts). Isett's bill would have lowered the rollback rate and the number of signatures needed for a challenge. Petitioners would have to get signatures equaling ten percent of the last gubernatorial election; if tax rates went up even more, petitions would need only five percent of that gubernatorial number. But the House added an amendment that would let local governments exempt any tax increases attributable to state mandates that aren't funded by the state or federal governments. It set up a system where the comptroller would list those mandates each year, and also would allow local governments to show the comptroller items that didn't make the list. Isett, after that and a couple of other amendments were added, decided to wait until next week to try to win final passage for the bill. Last week, Dwayne Bohac, R-Houston, fell short of what he needed to impose state caps on local spending growth. His bill, and Isett's, were backed by Gov. Rick Perry, who worked the House floor before the bills came up to try to win support. Aides to Perry say he'll make a campaign issue of it.

State lawmakers don't have to worry about rollback electionsThe House and Senate are banging out the differences in their budgets, but they started pretty close together, at about $139 billion in proposed spending over the next two years. If lawmakers successfully pass the school finance plans they're talking about, they'll add $11 billion or so to that total, which would put the state budget around $150 billion. Two years ago, with an economy-induced budget crunch, lawmakers approved a two-year budget that totaled $117.4 billion. Without school finance, the current plan calls for an increase over that plan of about 18.4 percent. With it, the number leaps to 27.8 percent. If those numbers were attached to a city or county in Texas, under current law, the spending plan would be open to a rollback election.

The Senate's version of the tax bill is still percolating, to put it politely, and it's unlikely the public will get a peek at it this week.Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst told a herd of reporters that the Senate's school finance/reform bill could be out of committee early next week with a possible floor vote late next week. The tax bill that raises state revenues enough to cover the costs of buying down local school property taxes will be right behind it. The Senate Finance Committee could see that on Monday of next week; if they're quick about it, a floor vote could follow quickly behind the school finance bill. That would leave about four weeks in the regular session for reconciliation of expected big differences between what the House passed earlier and what the Senate is willing to approve. Dewhurst's line is familiar to anyone who has been following this: "We're looking at a flat low-rate tax where everybody is in the same boat... I don't think there's a will here in the Senate to increase sales taxes as much as the House did." He wouldn't go further into detail on the Senate plan or into what components of the House plan are unacceptable to the upper chamber. Meanwhile, the House is getting ready to vote on a state property tax for schools. It requires 100 votes -- as a constitutional amendment, it needs two-thirds of the Legislature to make it onto the ballot for voter approval -- and local officials don't like the idea of the state taking over most of the revenue end of school finance. But it has advantages: If schools are funded with a statewide tax instead of uneven local taxes in rich and poor districts, the inequities that keep landing the school system in court could be leveled out. And one key attack on the current system -- that it's illegal for the state to tell local districts how much tax money they have to raise for schools -- would evaporate. State property taxes are included in the Senate's menu for reform. But House Speaker Tom Craddick, while saying he wanted the House to vote on the state taxes, also says he doesn't think the support is there. Calling a vote while the Senate is still working is a bit provocative, like telling a cook the main dish that has yet to be prepared will go uneaten. Dewhurst, however, treats it like a House problem: "I believe Speaker Craddick can pass what he wants to pass, so we'll have to wait to see if he has the votes."