The much-hyped Smoke-Free Texas bill was too much for the state Senate to inhale. The sponsors and promoters of that bill declared it dead with two weeks left in the legislative session. A smokeless tobacco bill that would change the way that product is taxed is getting some attention in the Senate. It would raise about $30 million to repay student loans for doctors who agree to practice, initially, in underserved areas of the state. And it would throw another $70 million or so into general revenue. The high-end tobacconists like it. The discount tobacco folks don't like it. Doctors like it. Lawmakers are split between wanting the money and fearing the appearance they're increasing taxes. The Senate tentatively approved legislation that would allow licensed students to carry guns on campus. If that's finally approved there, the House might have time to consider it. The House shot down — with a rule violation and not a vote — a resolution touting the state's sovereignty. The sponsors will try again in the time left. Tentative: Watch for Voter ID and the sunset bill on the Texas Department of Insurance on Friday. That was the word as of Tuesday afternoon, and as you know, the word changes all the time.

The first round of legislative deadlines hit the House last week, and bloggers are picking through bills to see what perished and what survived. They're also looking forward to campaigns that are shaping up, speaking legalese and listening to information on the radio. Wrapping it up is a list of other items, including a piece on the Senate's cover girl.

* * * * *

Pulse Check

Due to rising unemployment, Texas is now eligible for a quarter of a billion dollars in additional federal unemployment insurance funds, the Austin American-Statesman's Postcards reports. The new money has no strings attached, but there is a catch: First, Texas needs to make the changes to state law needed to acquire the $555 million in federal unemployment funds that Perry says he doesn't want.

Budget conferees have reached agreement on funding for transportation, Medicaid and children's health insurance, says Texas Politics, the Houston Chronicle's blog. Meanwhile, WhosPlayin? looks at bills concerned with North Texas, and Lone Star Times keeps tabs on how Senators voted on Senate Bill 298, which allows state troopers to set up roadblocks to catch drunk drivers.

Bay Area Houston goes over the primary points of the Sunset bill on the Texas Residential Construction Commission. Find more here. And an Eye on Williamson contributor makes a case for letting the TRCC lapse into oblivion.

The Austin Chronicle's newsdesk blog has interviews with legislators whose names begin with "Rep." and end in "D-Austin," including Elliott Naishtat, Mark Strama, Valinda Bolton, Eddie Rodriguez and Dawnna Dukes.

An anonymous someone on the House Calendars Committee tagged gambling legislation, stalling it to prevent it from reaching the full House before the deadline, says Postcards. Meanwhile, Texas Prison Bid'ness marks the passing of "private jail accountability" legislation, which died in the House. And PoliTex, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram's blog, has a play-by-play on North Texas lawmakers' tactics to bring their legislation back from beyond the grave.

* * * * *

Poli-Glut

Panhandle Truth Squad ponders the dynamics of the race to replace U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, if she steps down at the end of 2009 as guessed at by U.S. Sen. John Cornyn. (That blog marked its fifth anniversary on Friday.) The Houston Chronicle's Texas on the Potomac has more from Cornyn, who says he's keeping an eye on Houston Mayor Bill White. The Dallas Morning News's Trail Blazers talked to Cornyn, too.

Hutchison debuted the winning entry to design her campaign bumper sticker. Her choice drew flak from Gov. Rick Perry's press flaks, who point out that the winners aren't from Texas, according to Texas Politics. The design also drew criticism from Burnt Orange Report, who note that her sticker looks similar to George W. Bush's.

Trail Blazers peeks behind the curtain to reveal the early players in the 2010 Attorney General's race: Sen. Royce West, D-Dallas, who's thinking about it; Barbara Radnofsky, who says she's in; incumbent AG Greg Abbott, who might bail out in favor of the U.S. Senate or, more likely, an open seat for lieutenant governor, if David Dewhurst elects to move on; and, Rep. Dan Branch, R-Dallas, who's exploring in case Abbott does move on.

Greg's Opinion color-codes a map of the southeastern U.S. according to Democratic and Republican state House districts.

* * * * *

It's the Law

Tex Parte Blog has details on the proposed University of North Texas Law School, which representatives have approved (with no funding). Rep. Norma Chavez, D-El Paso, tacked an amendment on to that legislation calling for a study on creating a law school on the border reports Vaqueros & Wonkeros, the El Paso Times's blog.

The last thing Texas needs is another public law school, asserts BurkaBlog, saying it would be far cheaper for the state to direct funding to Southern Methodist University, that the UNT Law School "will inevitably be second-rate" and that less demand will exist for lawyers in the future. [eds. note: Burka is a grad of the UT Law School.]

Tex Parte gives a heads up on a major class-action suit filed in East Texas against Google, AOL, Turner Broadcasting and MySpace. The Statesman's Business Blog reports on Attorney General Greg Abbott's lawsuit against car warranty robo-callers. And Rep. Armando Walle, D-Houston, got stung during an Austin police operation because he didn't stop his car for a "pedestrian" (undercover officer) in a crosswalk. Poli-Tex blogger Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer, D-San Antonio, has some fun at Walle's expense.

* * * * *

On the Radio

One of the real surprises this session has been the metamorphosis of state Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, from a rightwing, flame-spitting radio host into a collaborative lawmaker, writes Burkablog. Meanwhile, minority-owned radio stations in Houston are angry at U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee because of a bill she's cosponsoring that would give royalties to musicians when their songs are played on the air.

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul says states should be able to legalize marijuana if they wanna, according to Potomac, which posts an Air America radio interview with Paul. In related news, Paul's son Rand Paul is exploring a run for the U.S. Senate in Kentucky.

* * * * *

This and That

Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth, graces the cover of a Fort Worth lifestyle magazine, KVUE's Political Junkie reports. Meanwhile, Texas Watchdog got mentioned in a Time magazine article on the decline of traditional media. And Ellis County Observer is advertising his services as a private investigatory journalist for hire.

Unca Darrell reports that the Houston Chronicle's political writer Alan Bernstein is jumping ship over to the Harris County Sheriff's Office. The Houston Press's Hair Balls speaks with Bernstein about it.

Junkie highlights wordplay by Rep. Rob Eissler, R-The Woodlands, that will make you laugh, cry or maybe a little of both. Williamson Republic has shut down their blog. And A Capitol Blog's Rep. Aaron Peña, D-Edinburg, posts a group photo of the South Texas delegation after the successful passage of a bill promoting a medical school in the Rio Grande Valley.

On the death of writer Bud Shrake, Texas "Off the Record" recalls a reunion last fall with Shrake and other former Fort Worth Press staffers.

Headline of the Week award goes to Letters from Texas for an article on Senators' rejection of Shanda Perkins, who had been nominated for a spot on the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, titled, "She stopped by, but didn't have an appointment."

---

This edition of Out There was compiled and written by Patrick Brendel, who hails from Victoria but is semi-settled in Austin. We cherry-pick the state's political blogs each week, looking for news, info, gossip, and new jokes. The opinions here belong (mostly) to the bloggers, and we're including their links so you can hunt them down if you wish. Our blogroll — the list of Texas blogs we watch — is on our links page, and if you know of a Texas political blog that ought to be on it, just shoot us a note. Please send comments, suggestions, gripes or retorts to Texas Weekly editor Ross Ramsey.

[UPDATED] The next state budget is in the last stages before completion and the tax cut for small businesses is suddenly on the bubble.

The House wants to give businesses an exemption on their first $1 million in earnings — an idea that would free about 39,000 businesses from the corporate franchise tax. But it would cost the state $172 million, and some of the folks in leadership see shadows over that money.

Negotiators from the House and Senate are trying to settle about $3.8 billion in differences between the bills approved by the two houses (the Senate was higher) and started talking a couple of weeks ago about higher estimates of Medicaid costs. Whether you buy those new numbers or not, they're tamping down expectations about the money available for the next two years, and the talk about the corporate franchise tax cut is part of that.

Several financial objects are still in motion. Comptroller Susan Combs has told the folks in the Pink Building that she won't change the estimates of revenue she made at the beginning of the session. This year's corporate franchise tax returns were due last Friday and are still coming in; her aides say they don't have a bead on whether those payments are on, above, or below the mark. But consider the revenue box checked.

The unemployment insurance bill passed earlier this year by the Senate — it would bring in $556 million in federal stimulus money while making changes to UI that would cost the state $70 million to $80 million a year — is pending in the House Calendars Committee set for House consideration on Wednesday, and it's worth noting that that's too late on the calendar for the Legislature to override a gubernatorial veto, if there is one.

The finance folks want to get the budget set before they take up the business tax. The UI bill, opposed by Gov. Rick Perry, might never come to a vote. It might also be trade bait: Perry opposes the UI package but supports the tax cut. Together, the two bills would save business taxpayers $728 million over the next two years.

Federal highway officials have reservations about local control of highway dollars in Texas — the subject of legislation pending in the Pink Building.At issue is a section of HB 300 — the Texas Department of Transportation sunset legislation — which is now being reconciled by House and the Senate negotiators in the Legislature. Their letter:

The governor talks about secession. Satire ensues. The humor paper's lead:

WICHITA FALLS, TX—Calling it an essential step toward securing the Texas border and protecting his people's way of life, Gov. Rick Perry announced Tuesday the completion of a 1,953-mile wall designed to keep out millions of unwanted Americans.

Here's a link.

The Senate Nominations committee voted 4-2 to let the full Senate decide whether Republican Don McLeroy should chair the State Board of Education. That panel had withheld its approval after his confirmation hearing.Sen. Mike Jackson, R-La Porte, said he put the governor's nomination of McLeroy to a vote after "the situation changed." Jackson, who chairs the Nominations panel, wouldn't say just what changed, and said he has "no idea" whether McLeroy will have to votes to win confirmation when his name is put to a vote, probably next week. McLeroy has been chairman of the board for almost two years — Gov. Rick Perry installed him in that post shortly after the 2007 session of the Lege. If he's voted down by the full Senate — or if they don't vote at all before ending the session in a couple of weeks — Perry will have to choose a new chair from among the other members of the SBOE. In committee, four Republicans out-voted two Democrats (with one Republican absent). [editor's note: McLeroy's last name was misspelled in earlier versions of this story.]

The House adjourned just before reaching an unemployment insurance bill opposed by Gov. Rick Perry, and a Top 10 percent bill that he favors. But they didn't kill either one.Perry, talking to reporters earlier in the day, said his feelings about the UI bill are well known. He stopped short of saying he would veto the measure if the House, like the Senate, approves it. But he didn't offer much comfort to its supporters: "I wouldn't want to be a member voting to let Washington, D.C., tell us how to run our business in Texas. I just think the people of the state of Texas have that one figured out now. Texans know how to run Texas better." The two bills will top the calendar on Thursday.

A local option transit tax caught a ride on the Senate's version of a major transportation bill, adding to a legislative traffic jam that separates that version from one passed earlier by the House.The Senate's Transportation Committee voted out the sunset bill for the Texas Department of Transportation, sending that to the full Senate for a vote — maybe this weekend — and then on to a deadline negotiation with the House. At this point, the bills are different from top to bottom. The Senate wants to keep the appointed board at TXDOT; the House wants to do away with it. The Senate would leave the final decisions on funding for road projects with the state; the House would cede that power to local officials. The House creates a legislative oversight committee to babysit the agency; the Senate doesn't. The list goes on, but you get the idea (and the Senate's not through yet). Just before sending the bill to the full House, the Senate panel added in another piece of legislation that would allow local boards to ask local voters to approve higher gasoline taxes to pay for local transportation projects. It would be limited to the state's larger metropolitan areas; one supporter referred to that as a "pilot project," though it would apply to Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio, Austin, El Paso, and Corpus Christi. That gasoline tax legislation is on the House's calendar for this week, but will probably be delayed until the Senate's had a poke at that sunset bill. Separately, state finance folks are sorting out a mess in the transportation section of the proposed two-year budget. At one point, their forays into Fund 6 — the main source of transportation funding in the budget — would have left TXDOT without enough money to pay bonds (sold less than a year ago at the urging of the Guv, the Lite Guv, and the Speaker) and left the agency short of funds for new projects, and of the general revenue money that's used to attract federal matching dollars. That SNAFU is one of several that have kept the budget negotiations open for the last couple of days.

A federal investigation of Texas' State Schools for the mentally retarded will end; the U.S. Department of Justice has agreed to a $112 million settlement that includes regular monitoring of the schools by independent experts, enhanced oversight and new guidelines for employees. The Legislature has to adopt resolutions — being drafted now by Sen. Jane Nelson, R-Lewisville, and Rep. Patrick Rose, R-Dripping Springs — accepting the terms of the deal. The agreement (see a summary here) follows disclosures of abuses of residents by state employees and others and comes as lawmakers are finishing reforms designed in part to regain control of the institutions. In legislation moving this week, lawmakers added video surveillance; better background checks, drug testing, and training of employees; and an ombudsman's office to handle complaints. As they often do after a scandal, they've proposed changing the name of the facilities from state schools to "state-supported living centers." It also would house the highest-risk residents in one of the schools rather than scattered throughout the system.

Fringe groups are up in arms, frantically sending out hysterical e-mails about the dire consequences if Republican Rep. Todd's Smith bill to clarify the corporate and union prohibition on campaign contributions were to become law. They allege that advocacy groups, charitable non-profits, even churches, will run afoul of the law for electioneering under HB 2511 — squelching these entities' free speech rights in Texas.

What these groups don't understand — and may get them and you in big trouble — is that the electioneering standard in HB 2511 is already the law today in Texas. The Texas Ethics Commission interprets our corporate and union prohibition on funding direct campaign expenditures (electioneering) to apply to the limits of the U.S. Constitution: "We believe the Texas Legislature intended section 253.094 to prohibit political expenditures by corporations and labor organizations to the full extent allowed by the Constitution, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court." Tex Ethics Opinion No. 198 (1994) (emphasis added). The Texas Supreme Court, in a holding by then Justice (now Attorney General) Greg Abbott, adopted this position of the Ethics Commission in Osterberg v. Peca (2000).

HB 2511 expressly adopts the current constitutional standard for electioneering set by Chief Justice John Roberts in Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC in 2007. In that case, Roberts defined the constitutional test for electioneering, after knocking down as applied McCain-Feingold's 60-day test (no ads referring to a candidate 60 days before an election). The chief justice held that the constitutional test for electioneering extended beyond the "magic words (vote for or against)" to communications, considering the whole content and the context, where there was no (not even one) reasonable interpretation other than the communication advocates for the election or defeat of a candidate. Emphasizing that this test was a high bar, Roberts stated that any reasonable doubts were to be resolved in favor of allowing the communication to be funded with corporate and union dollars and for individual donors to remain anonymous.

Roberts' constitutional standard for electioneering has applied for the last two years in Texas, pursuant to the Texas Ethics Commission's opinions and Texas case law. It is just that only handful of election lawyers know it. And despite the hysteria concerning HB 2511, there has not been a rash of ill-advised indictments or civil litigation in the last two years involving the corporate prohibition.

Without a statutory definition, we know from experience that rash lawyers will poorly advise their clients and tell them that Texas has an evadable corporate and union prohibition. Hearing what they want to hear, these political players are going to "go for it" and get themselves in big and expensive civil and criminal trouble.

For those who want legal clarity and the law set out in statute for all to see, I believe the better approach is to adopt explicitly in statute Roberts' test as well as express safe harbors. This is what HB 2511 does. Fringe groups' ignorance and hysteria does not change the fact that Roberts' test applies today in Texas. Nor does it change the fact that knowingly violating the corporate and prohibition is a 3rd degree felony and results civilly in treble civil damages and attorney's fees.

The question of this late hour is whether the Texas Senate's leadership allows a hearing and vote on HB 2511, or succumbs to fringe purveyors of hysteria and confusion.

Fred Lewis is an Austin lawyer and activist.

---

Texas Weekly's Soapbox is a venue for opinions, spins, alternate takes, and other interesting stuff sent in by readers and others. We moderate submissions to keep crazy people out, and anonymous commentary is ineligible. Readers can respond (through the moderator) to things posted here. Got something to submit? We're interested in everything from full-blown opinion pieces to short bits to observations or tidbits that have escaped us and the mass media. One rule: Your name goes on your words. Call or send an email: Ross Ramsey, Editor, Texas Weekly, 512/288-6598, ramsey@texasweekly.com.

This is the season when the Legislature's power wanes and the governor's power waxes.

The lawmakers are within a few days of leaving town until 2011. The governor's veto power is now irreversible, and it continues that way for another 20 days after the end of the session.

The calendar is built to put Rick Perry in an ideal deal-making mode: Bills are piling up on his desk and there's just a little time to fix things the way he wants them. He's got the power to call weary lawmakers back for a special session on any subject he chooses — or not to call them back in the rare instances when they want to return.

Perry has been working the floors in each chamber, and used the calendar, and the threat of a special session, to break legislative gridlock on windstorm insurance. It's not clear yet what'll happen, but the legislation is no longer stuck in committee.

The calendar and the Guv's wishes came into play in the reconciliation of House and Senate budget plans. Lawmakers put more money into transportation and undid some raids on transit funds at Perry's insistence, for instance, and Perry worked to save his discretionary accounts for economic development as the budget was finalized.

When it comes to appointments, the Senate's say in who's running the executive branch for the next two years is ebbing. An appointee named in the first week of June doesn't have to face Senate confirmation until next session; in fact, an appointee could be in place until the end of next session, two years from now. Controversial nominees who haven't already been named won't be named while the Lege is in town — not if the Guv wants them to serve, anyway. Controversial appointees who've already been named — like SBOE Chair Don McLeroy of College Station and Pardons & Paroles nominee Shanda Perkins of Burleson— have to win Senate consent before the Lege is gone or they're effectively busted.

This lasts about a month (barring a special session). After the last bill either has been vetoed, signed, or allowed to slip onto the books without a signature, the governor's power falls to its normal level. The Legislature will be gone. State agencies and lobbyists and business people and citizens will sort out what's been done.

And the 2010 political season will begin in earnest.

Coming this fall to a Texas college near you: Students with less stellar high school grades, with money in their (parents') pockets, and with guns on their hips.

Maybe.

It's not the next Robert Rodriguez movie enabled by new state film incentives, but the result of three higher education bills that have received Senate approval and await nods from the House. One would loosen the rules that require schools to give preference to students in the Top 10 percent of their high school class. Another would reregulate tuition at state schools. And the third would allow licensed students and others to carry handguns on campus.

Senate Bill 175 by Sen. Florence Shapiro, R-Plano, would let colleges limit the number of students admitted under the Top 10 rule. The House started work on that but quit for the night with the bill still on the operating table.

The rule was passed in 1997, following a U.S. Supreme Court decision outlawing affirmative action in college admissions. In 2003, the court decided that colleges could use race as one factor in admissions. The rule has been credited with removing disparities in admission rates between students from rural and urban areas.

The powers that be at the University of Texas at Austin have been pushing for a rule change for several sessions, saying the growing number of automatically admitted freshmen is squeezing out other students they would like to admit.

About 40 percent of enrolled UT-Austin freshmen from Texas high schools were admitted under the rule when the law first took effect in 1998. Today, that number is about 80 percent. (Although the population of Texas has grown by about 20 percent since 1998, the number of enrolled Texans at UT-Austin has remained relatively steady, from 6110 freshmen in 1998 to 6322 in 2008.)

"Without a change, one of out state's top universities will soon lose discretion over the makeup of its freshman class," says House sponsor Rep. Dan Branch, R-Dallas, chair of the Higher Education committee.

At Texas A&M-College Station, the state's other Tier One public university, about half of fall 2008 incoming freshmen were admitted automatically.

Rep. Dennis Bonnen, R-Angleton, pushed successfully for a floor amendment that allows Top 10 Percent students to keep their "automatic admission tickets" to universities for three years, allowing a student to attend community college before going on to the four-year college of his/her choice. Bonnen says his idea will assist students who cannot afford a four-year college right away, or whose parents want them to stay at home for a while after graduation. "I think it will create significant diversity," he says.

• SB 1443 by Sen. Judith Zaffirini, D-Laredo, limits colleges' ability to set their own tuition rates. The bill prohibits the state's major schools from hiking tuition and fees by more than five percent a year. Some schools would not be able to raise tuition at all, pending approval from a legislative study group.

It also encourages state lawmakers to provide adequate amounts of money to colleges, in recognition that chronic underfunding is what led to tuition deregulation in 2003, and the price increases that followed. As we went to press, that one was pending in the House Calendars Committee.

• So-called "campus carry" legislation, SB 1164 by Sen. Jeff Wentworth, R-San Antonio, lets concealed handgun license holders over the age of 21 carry firearms on college campuses. As written, the bill applies to both public and private universities, which then could independently choose to opt out of the law.

Wentworth is worried about time running out on his bill, which cleared the Senate on Wednesday, but he is optimistic about its chances in the House because he made changes to his bill to match it up with companion House Bill 1893 by Rep. Joe Driver, R-Garland. Driver's bill passed a House committee and attracted more than 75 coauthors before dying when the deadline for House bills passed last week.

The arithmetic looks good, at least. Driver says he had 79 House coauthors on his campus carry bill, but several dropped off after feeling pressure from outside influences. Driver now claims 75 or 76 coauthors, plus 10 to 15 other representatives who have assured him personally they will vote in favor of the bill.

To have any chance, SB 1164 has to clear two committees — Public Safety and Calendars — by 10 o'clock Sunday night.

"It's totally bipartisan. There's really no rural versus urban, no big city versus small city. Maybe some of the people in cities where there's public universities may not vote for it," Driver says. "I think the majority feel that it's a bill that does what it's designed to do, and that's to give people a chance to protect themselves wherever they go."

— by a Texas Weekly Correspondent

Unemployment in the state hit 6.7 percent in April. That's unchanged from March, but up from 4.6 percent in the same month of 2008, according to the Texas Workforce Commission. By TWC's reckoning, Texas has lost 173,900 in the last 12 months. The state is doing better than the country, though. The national unemployment rate in April was 8.9 percent. Amarillo, at 4.1 percent, had the state's lowest jobless rate last month. The highest was 8.9 percent, in McAllen-Edinburg-Mission.

One of the cornerstones of good economic analysis is the realization that, in the words of my former colleague Milton Friedman, "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch." What Friedman's quote means is simply that fiscal policy cannot create wealth, it can only redistribute wealth. For everyone who gets federal funds, there is someone who loses those funds. Yet when it comes to federal money for the states, this fundamental truth is lost. People falsely believe that federal funds to the states actually come without costs. People equate federal dollars to the states to supplement state unemployment insurance (UI) programs with a free meal that should be enjoyed for as long, and often, as possible. The reaction to governors who question the efficacy of the recent stimulus package — most notably Texas Gov. Rick Perry — is simply the latest example of this mistaken belief. Every additional dollar the government spends to supplement state unemployment benefits must be removed from someone's pocket — through higher taxes today, or higher borrowing today, which is the same as higher taxes tomorrow. Either way, this form of government spending crowds out private sector investment, diminishing the private economy's rate of growth. In other words, increasing this form of government spending makes citizens poorer because it takes their money now and reduces their income later. Everyone sympathizes with the needs of those who are unemployed through no fault of their own. But increasing taxes on people who work and paying more to people who don't work will cause output to fall and the number of people who don't work to rise. Finding the right policy balance is tough — just how much income support is appropriate? This fact is at the heart of the debate about the extent to which Texas should accept federal stimulus money. The UI program is generally funded by state taxes levied on wages paid to employees by employers. During good times, state revenues far exceed unemployment insurance costs, and state unemployment insurance funds run a surplus. Recessions reverse the arithmetic. During bad economic times, unemployment rates surge, and state UI costs exceed current revenues as states extend their unemployment compensation beyond the amounts contributed to the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund. Historically, the federal government often stepped in to cover the increased costs, but with strings attached. During the last recession, for example, the federal government provided the states with additional revenues to cover holes in their unemployment compensation funds. But in order to receive these funds, the states had to loosen unemployment insurance eligibility requirements. Following the federal revenue help between 2002 and 2004, total state unemployment tax collections — including tax collections in Texas — permanently increased in order to cover the new federal mandates. A similar experience can be expected this time once the temporary federal money runs dry in 2011. Even proponents of making the policy changes required to be eligible for the UI stimulus funds agree that the new federal programs will increase taxes on employers' payroll — albeit in their estimate by less than $80 million per year. It is undisputed, however, that accepting more federal money now will permanently increase costs on employers of Texas later once the one-time federal funds run out. Perhaps more importantly, the unemployment insurance supplement and more generally the whole stimulus package will lead to job losses in the Lone Star State. In a recent research paper my firm produced for the Texas Public Policy Foundation, we illustrated how increased government spending crowds out private business activity. In the case of the federal stimulus package, the surge in federal spending is so dramatic that we estimated it would reduce private sector business output by 2.5 percent, which translates into between 131,400 and 171,900 incremental jobs lost in Texas. Texas can't insulate itself from these impacts. Due to the unavoidable negative impact, Texas needs to carefully scrutinize all federal programs to ensure that the additional expenditures do not create even more negative effects on the Texas economy. The history of federal unemployment insurance aid leading to even greater government expenditures in the future warrants particular caution as legislators consider whether to accept these additional funds. To ignore the collateral damage higher benefits for the unemployed and higher taxes on employers have on employment and output is just plain bad economics and bad politics. A big heart needs a clear eye and vice versa. Arthur Laffer is a Senior Fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin; and the founder and chairman of Laffer Associates, an economic research and consulting firm that provides global investment-research services to institutional asset managers, pension funds, financial institutions, and corporations.

---

Texas Weekly's Soapbox is a venue for opinions, spins, alternate takes, and other interesting stuff sent in by readers and others. We moderate submissions to keep crazy people out, and anonymous commentary is ineligible. Readers can respond (through the moderator) to things posted here. Got something to submit? We're interested in everything from full-blown opinion pieces to short bits to observations or tidbits that have escaped us and the mass media. One rule: Your name goes on your words. Call or send an email: Ross Ramsey, Editor, Texas Weekly, 512/288-6598, ramsey@texasweekly.com.

Legislation that bewitched the Senate at the beginning of the legislative session is bothering and bewildering the House at the end of it. The Voter ID bill might not survive end-of-session deadlines without winning a two-thirds vote from the House — an unlikely prospect for a bit of legislation that might or might not be able to command a simple majority. House Democrats hit the brakes Friday, slowing consideration of local bills and delaying consideration of major bills like Voter ID, an overhaul of insurance regulation, revision of the top 10 rule for college admissions, unemployment insurance, and so on. And even after the local calendar is completed, there are several major bills in front of the Voter ID measure. They've turned the House calendar into a giant blocker bill so that Voter ID and other major issues can come up only if two-thirds of the House votes to take them up. The question is whether Democrats can hold the blockade until after a critical Tuesday deadline. The only ways to jump ahead on the calendar are to delay consideration of earlier bills, or to get two-thirds of the House to agree to take things out of order. And so the House has begun to behave like the Senate — at least in the case of Voter ID — with a two-thirds vote required to bring it up. It's not clear Voter ID can win a simple majority in the House, much less a two-thirds vote. This is temporary. Tuesday is the last day of the session for House consideration of Senate bills. House Democrats are trying to slow things down enough to put Voter ID on the wrong side of that deadline. The Texas Senate started the session by acting like the House: They approved Voter ID by putting it at the top of their agenda and voting it out. Since it was the first thing on the calendar, they didn't have to have a two-thirds vote to bring it up. Then they installed their "blocker bill" and went back to the normal way of doing business. The House has to consider its own local bills by the end of the day on Friday or those bills die. If you debate a local bill for more than ten minutes, you knock it off the calendar and it has to be put on the regular House calendar. Since the deadline has passed for House bills on the regular calendar, ten minutes of debate on a local bill effectively kills it. The Democrats are systematically debating each bill for nine minutes and 30 seconds — slowing everything down but not killing the bills. On Saturday, Senate local bills — 140 of them — lead the calendar. The Democrats think they can make that process last for 36 hours or so. After that come ten major bills that are in line in front of Voter ID. The Democrats have told the Republicans they'll be happy to suspend the rules for the insurance sunset bill and other pieces of legislation. Their aim is to prevent a debate or a vote on the Voter ID bill. Senators, meanwhile, have their staffs scrambling to make sure none of their legislation dies in the House logjam.

The Texas Residential Construction Commission is on its deathbed, failing to get a Senate hearing on the final day that was possible.Sen. Glenn Hegar Jr., R-Katy, says that leaves only two options: Let the agency expire under the state's Sunset laws, or include it in a "safety net" bill that would keep it alive through the 2011 legislative session. "I'm inclined to do what the Sunset report originally recommended," he says. That report said the state would be better off with no regulation than with the regulation it's getting. With the Senate deadline passed, Hegar says, there's no way to approve the TRCC's Sunset bill. He says he still needs to talk to the House sponsor — Rep. Ruth Jones McClendon, D-San Antonio. But he's for letting it die.

The Texas House calendar was held hostage by the Democrats for a third day, as they slow-played debate on minor legislation to prevent lawmakers from reaching a photo Voter ID bill that's further down the list of bills.

If the legislation doesn't come before the House by midnight Tuesday, it's dead.

But while House Democrats are controlling the pace of the game, it looks like Republicans will control the outcome. At the end of all of this, GOP officeholders have the ability to force the House to make a decision on Voter ID.

What might that decision be? Nobody seems to know whether the legislation will actually pass, or what form of it could win the consent of a majority of House members. At one end of the spectrum is Betty Brown, R-Terrell, whose version would require a photo ID and not allow any alternatives. At the other is Rafael Anchia, D-Dallas, who'd like no bill at all but would vote for a Voter ID bill that includes these components: same-day registration of voters during early voting; criminal prosecution of voter suppression; the ability to show a voter registration card and sign an affidavit in lieu of showing a photo ID; and a four-year "layout" before the voter ID law took effect.

Republicans who've been clamoring for voter ID legislation — we're including Gov. Rick Perry in this — can bring the issue to a vote even if the Democrats kill it momentarily on Tuesday night. If it comes to that, Perry has the power to call a special session on the issue if it's not resolved during the regular session.

Democrats say they have located a "a point of order" — a violation of parliamentary rules — that would knock the Voter ID bill out of consideration. The Republican sponsor, Todd Smith of Euless, says he doesn't believe that's a valid point, and adds that the bill was "scrubbed" by, among others, the state GOP.

Lawmakers from both parties have dug in their heels. Democrats want to eat up the clock, preventing a vote on the Voter ID bill before the deadline. Republicans are unwilling to move the bill or take it off the calendar. Both groups seem willing to let everything else on the calendar die if they don't get their way on the voter bill.

The Democrats have offered to take important bills out of order as long as it doesn't bring the House closer to a Voter ID vote. A major insurance regulation bill, for instance, is right behind the voter bill on the calendar. Republicans don't want to mess with the lineup established by the Calendars Committee. Many of them think the Democrats are in the middle of a big political mistake and see no need to interrupt them. If any bills die because of this, they'll blame the Democrats' delaying action that started Friday and ran through the weekend.

Democrats can pull out a victory if their delays produce a compromise bill or some similar accommodation. They've got more incentive to work it out than the Republicans do: Both sides have some bills on the critical list that they'd like to consider before the Tuesday deadline. But when it comes to Voter ID, the Republicans alone have the ability to force a vote later — in a special session — if they can't get what they want now.

Rep. Edmund Kuempel, R-Seguin, is ready to roll even if his doctors aren't. Kuempel, who had a heart attack in a Capitol elevator last week, appears to be on his way to a full recovery, according to Rep. Charlie Geren, who's been reporting his progress to the House. He's not likely to come back to work during the session, but all is well.

Three Senate Democrats stepped out of their government shoes for a minute to endorse Gene Locke, who's running for mayor of Houston. He'll do it with Rodney Ellis, Mario Gallegos, and John Whitmire in his corner.

Robert Jones, political director of Annie's List, made the Rising Stars list at Politics Magazine.

Sentenced: Mauricio Celis, the Corpus businessman who's illegal posing as a lawyer helped derail Michael Watts' political aspirations. Celis will be on probation for ten years and has to pay restitution estimated at more than $1 million.

Gov. Rick Perry's appointment office has been busy, naming:

• Todd Novosad of Austin, Catherine Benavidez of Carrollton, and Angela Sieffert of Dallas to the Texas Board of Occupational Therapy Examiners. Novosad is a rehabilitation specialist at Hallmark Rehabilitation. Benavidez is president of Injury Management Organizations. Sieffert is an occupational therapy assistant at Baylor Institute for Rehabilitation.

• Nils Mauritz, managing partner of Mauritz & Mauritz Cattle Co. of Ganado, to the Lavaca-Navidad River Authority's board. He also reappointed John Cotten Jr. of Ganado and Ronald Kubecka of Palacios to that board.

• Lester Ferguson, a retired Air Force colonel from Kerrville, and Lucy Wilke, an assistant district attorney there, to the board of the Upper Guadalupe River Authority. Perry also reappointed Stan Kubenka of Kerrville to that board.

• Edward Zwanziger, a physician assistant from Eustace, to the Texas Physician Assistant board of directors. The Guv also reappointed Ron Bryce of Red Oak to that board.

• Joanne Justice of Arlington, Jaime Blevins Hensley of Lufkin, and Dona Scurry of El Paso to the Texas Real Estate Commission. Justice and Hensley are Realtors; Scurry is a CPA.