Enlarge Bob Daemmrich

Bill sponsor State Rep. Jimmie Don Aycock, R-Killeen, is surrounded by members at the front mike while debate continues on HB 5 on March 26, 2013.

Easter is the real break in the session, with most of what follows constituting the blur we’ll remember when this one is over.

They all start slow. Maybe not this slow, with no crises spurring action or a governor’s agenda presented as a package of emergencies.

Speaker Joe Straus, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and Gov. Rick Perry entered the frame almost three months ago saying they had education, water and the budget on their minds. The House has voted on two of those and has the budget set for next Thursday, after the Easter break. The Senate knocked out the budget and is ready, sort of, to take on the education bill.

More on that in a minute.

Legislators have the opportunity to get the really big stuff done early — before their own rules create that familiar bill-killing funnel in the last weeks of the session. Those deadlines create chances for opponents who otherwise wouldn’t get their way.

The House, which doddered through its first major bill, found its footing this week. On the education bill, Rep. Jimmie Don Aycock, R-Killeen, amiably got his way on every amendment that came up during a long day. The next day, Allan Ritter, R-Nederland, did the same thing.

The outsiders who scared the spit out of the Legislature two years ago didn’t leave a mark this time. Maybe later.

Back to that education bill: The House version would let students off the hook on college-prep courses like algebra II as diploma requirements. Most colleges will still require them — Texas A&M Chancellor John Sharp said as much in front of a TribLive audience this week, with University of Texas Chancellor Francisco Cigarroa nodding in agreement. But the high schools wouldn’t, if the House gets its way.

That scratches an itch voters were complaining about in Democratic and Republican regions, but it split the business community. The career track proponents don’t think those courses are necessary for kids who want to finish high school and go to work, perhaps adding an associate degree or training later. The professional track types want high school graduates to be ready for college when they complete high school.

The House would cut the number of required tests from 15 to five — answering a strong demand from voters. Members stuck with Aycock on the diploma requirements, but the fight moves now to the Senate, where businesses and advocates of the current, more demanding curriculum are getting some traction. Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, apparently has the votes to bring the bill up for consideration, but might need to agree to hold the line on standards to go forward. That’s apparently where the governor is weighing in, too.

The bill could be up next week, depending on the maneuvering. 

Enlarge

A cursory look at the budget proposals developing at each end of the Capitol might make one think higher-education institutions are on the chopping block.

The House budget slashes higher-education funding by 25 percent. The Senate budget is more generous, only cutting by 22.5 percent.

There’s a good reason why you haven’t heard about universities up in arms: The cuts aren't real. In fact, higher-education funding will increase under both budget proposals.

The budget summaries give the impression of higher-education funding cuts because lawmakers decided this was the session for patient income received from health-related colleges and universities to be moved off the books.

For more than 20 years, the Legislature has included in its budgets income from patients patronizing hospitals and dental clinics operated by public higher-education institutions. The money comes into the schools and is used by the schools and never actually flows through the state budget, except on paper. The amounts have grown in that time, mostly because of the success of the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

“It was money that was just appropriated out to the health-related institutions,” said John Barton, a spokesman with the Legislative Budget Board. “There’s some question of why it was ever included in the appropriations process.”

Barton compared including the patient income funds in the overall state budget to including the income raised by the University of Texas from its football program.

“That money is off-budget, and UT decides what they’re going to do with that money,” Barton said. “Patient income is the same thing.”

Last year, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst cited income from M.D. Anderson as helping feed a perception that the Legislature is spending too much taxpayer money.

“We appropriate that money back to them,” Dewhurst said. “It gives the impression that there’s more growth in the budget than there is.”

If lawmakers opted to keep patient income in the next budget, it would end up $6.1 billion bigger and have about 15,000 more full-time employees. Almost all of that income, about $5.8 billion, is from M.D. Anderson.

Whether the money is in the budget or not has no impact on the state's constitutional spending limit, which lawmakers have been concerned about during budget discussions this year.  

Earlier this month, when Senate Finance Chairman Tommy Williams, R-The Woodlands, touted his budget plan on the Senate floor ahead of a 29-2 vote, he described the removal of patient income as a move toward “budget transparency.”

That may be true in future budgets but, for this session, the change is a source of confusion.

Because patient income is included in the current budget but not a part of the proposals for the next budget, it gives the false impression that the proposed growth in state spending is smaller than it actually is. If that $6.1 billion were added to the Senate proposal, the budget plan would represent a 6.1 percent increase over the current budget, instead of the 2.9 percent hike that has been touted by Senators.

In the context of a $195 billion budget, $6.1 billion isn’t a large figure. But removing it this year kept budget proposals below $200 billion, a nice round number that may be technically meaningless but would have still generated plenty of news headlines regarding the state’s spending growth.

Putting off that unwanted publicity may have been the most compelling reason for Republican leaders to choose this session to move billions of dollars off the books.

Enlarge Todd Wiseman

University of Texas at Austin President, William Powers - Dec. 14, 2011

The tension between the University of Texas System, its flagship university in Austin and Texas lawmakers, including a majority of the Senate, does not appear to be dissipating. But there are only eight weeks until the legislative session ends and most of those lawmakers go home.

Descriptions of the situation often boil it down to a battle between alleged rival camps, one led by Gov. Rick Perry and the other by University of Texas at Austin President Bill Powers, and lean heavily on buzzwords like “micromanagement,” “transparency” and “witch hunt.”

The specifics of the actual skirmishes are more complex — the latest fight is over who should conduct what many consider an unnecessary external review of an internal review that was externally reviewed — which means that they fall under the jurisdiction of several legislative committees.

Testimony surrounding the subject of all these reviews, a controversial and now-defunct “forgivable loan” program run by the University of Texas Law School Foundation, has already been heard in the House Select Committee on Transparency in State Agency Operations. It is expected to come up in the Joint Oversight Committee on Higher Education Governance, Excellence and Transparency, which was created for the purpose of digging into the tension at UT.

On Wednesday, the Senate Higher Education Committee held a hearing to discuss a bill by Sen. Kel Seliger, R-Amarillo, that would put more checks and training requirements on regents. Meanwhile, prospective new regents, appointed by Perry, are waiting to be considered in Senate Nominations.

The installment of Perry’s last round of regent appointees, who were not heavily scrutinized by the nominations committee, on the UT board in 2011 sparked an ongoing period of distrust and controversy. If that makes the committee members wary of the latest group, which includes the re-appointment of Paul Foster, who many believe may be the next chairman, then there are a few ways this could play out.

The committee can vote approve the appointees, vote against their appointments or finish the session without ever giving them a hearing. In that final case, their specific nominations are dead, but then Perry can install whomever else he wants on the board. And those interim appointees won’t be subject to confirmation for another nearly two years.

This perfectly illustrates the conundrum for those that are worried about Powers’ and UT-Austin’s standing. Unless all parties are able to talk it out in the many committee hearings they will have the opportunity to, or lawmakers pass bold legislation to rein in board members, there will be little standing between the regents and the university after sine die.

Enlarge

You can view the video at: https://trib.it/YGHrB0

Enlarge

The political and governmental insiders seem situated firmly on the University of Texas at Austin side of the feud between the governor and the UT System regents and the administration at UT-Austin.

Start with Bill Powers, president of the Austin flagship: 74 percent said he shouldn’t resign or be replaced. And the regents: 75 percent described them as “interfering” at UT-Austin, while 18 percent describe them as “doing their jobs.”

The numbers held in their description of Gov. Rick Perry as “hurting” rather than “helping” the UT System. And if their point isn’t clear yet, 74 percent said they side with the administration and 16 percent said they side with the regents.

Should other institutions of higher education be getting the same kind of attention? Three-fifths said no. Finally, we asked about the prospective confirmations of the governor’s three new appointees to the UT board of regents: 28 percent said they should be confirmed, while 49 percent said they should not be.

We collected comments along the way and include the full set here as an attachment. Some highlights follow.

Enlarge Todd Wiseman

.

Should Bill Powers resign or be replaced as president of the University of Texas?

• "The answer to this question turns on whether Powers will acknowledge he answers to the Chancellor who answers to the Board of Regents."

• "President Powers may not ultimately be able to save his job from the wrath of the governor but there is no way he should resign or be replaced. Of course, all of this has to be taking its toll on him but I hope he doesn't give in. He's an honorable guy standing up to a less than honorable effort to throw him out."

• "He's been an excellent president. His only offense is being an independent voice for the university in a city that is under autocratic one-man rule."

• "While I think Powers is not without blame on several fronts, the regents, acting on behalf of the Governor, have contorted the governance of the system."

• "Powers’ only fault is telling the truth about the affirmative harm a decade of Republican 'reform' has done to higher education in Texas."

• "If he is forced out, this will be one of the most ignominious moments in the history of Texas. Academic freedom and political independence will be well on their way to their graves; something like this happening fifty years ago may not have been a big deal, but now, it seriously questions the legitimacy of institutions supposedly reformed years ago and held to contemporary standards of ethics."

• "Homer Rainey is rolling in his grave. I thought we quit this (*%^&%$ 60 years ago."

• "He's a good fellow, but he's perpetuating a fight that he should have deftly avoided (as Cigarroa has) and used his energy and strength to reform and elevate UT. Rather we get all the high profile martyrdom and division. He's not the main fault, but he hasn't used his leadership well. He's become part of the distraction. Folks can blame Perry and his crowd, but these are the same folks who picked John Sharp, a fellow who is moving forward rather nicely at A&M."

• "Yes, but only because he's a jock-sniffer who has refused to clean out a top-heavy, sclerotic athletic department. (Hey, this is Texas. What did you expect, a reasoned debate on academics?)"

Enlarge Todd Wiseman

.

Are the UT System regents interfering at UT-Austin, or doing their jobs?

• "While one may not like the direction a governing board takes an organization, they are the governing board."

• "Not everyone might agree, but the regents are well within their authority in reviewing and/or questioning the actions of any president in the UT System."

• "Micromanagers who are damaging the reputation and image of the UT system and especially UT Austin."

• "Oversight by another name."

• "They're acting ridiculously and it is extremely obvious what they are trying to do. Not once in the twenty plus years I've been working the legislature have I EVER seen the UT board of regents act so malicious and with ill content. Makes me ashamed to be a former student."

• "As long as they are setting policy, the Regents are doing their job."

• "Interfering, but unfortunately they are also doing their jobs, as is defined by he who appointed them."

• "A Regent should always have the ability to ask appropriate questions. What they do with the information is the only thing that should be open to public scrutiny."

• "The very thought of university regents actions being characterized as interfering is silly. That's their job."

Enlarge Todd Wiseman

.

Is Gov. Rick Perry helping or hurting the UT System?

• "The System will be better when Powers and others recognize they are there to serve the students and not the faculty or their own egos."

• "Perry's major point -- that the University could use some economy measures -- is overwhelmed by the naked political interference in Texas' flagship university."

• "The way it's playing out, all the drama is hurting UT."

• "Perry is an old-school Aggie who hates The University with every fiber of his being. No rational basis for his actions whatsoever."

• "I think Governor Perry has the right vision for the future of Texas education, but, as with some of his past initiatives, personal vendettas detract from otherwise noble efforts. We need a few flagship, world-class universities, with the others providing affordable educations which will impart job skills as well as abstract thoughts and obtuse facts. In other words, one size doesn't fit all."

• "Helping, his aim is to better serve the students and parents. Remember them, the consumers of this public good."

• "If he interferes; he's hurting. If he does nothing, he's hurting. He's probably stuck between a rock and hard place over the people he appointed to that post."

• "Definitely hurting. Forget the Bill Powers stuff. Can we talk about him putting an Aggie on the UT Board of Regents, please?"

Enlarge Todd Wiseman

.

If you chose sides, would you be with the administration at UT-Austin or with the UT System regents?

• "I side with the Regents because I side with the students who are effectively the paying consumers of what the System provides."

• "UT-Austin all the way. And God bless Steve Hicks. I hope he can say he's a Regent with pride again soon."

• "College administrators always get defensive when their actions or motives are questioned. Regents provide oversight. Everyone answers to someone. Believe it or not, that should apply to academia as well."

• "Academia is already an echo-chamber, UT even more so; some would argue this is systemic to the higher education industrial complex. The regents bring a vital outside perspective to the governance of the school."

• "While the tendency is to think that elected officials are getting in the way of professional educators, in fact, education bureaucrats have created a university that does not reflect the values or intentions of the people of Texas who are, of course, paying for it. Powers and his ilk have no divine right to be free of politics when they live off government money. Most Texans are not worried that our university system does not function like California's, which is often the criticism. Instead, the California model is what we would like to avoid."

• "Call me old-fashioned, but I trust academics on issues of higher education as opposed to political appointees."

• "Tough one. Administration on some things and Regents on others."

• "How about giving us the choice of neither!"

• "Wrong choices. The correct answer is 'the Students.'"

Enlarge Todd Wiseman

.

Would other public institutions of higher education in Texas benefit from the same attention the UT system is getting from state leaders?

• "Leaders at other state institutions are keeping their heads down, trying to avoid attention, and thanking God it's Bill Powers' fight (and not theirs)."

• "There is more transparency when state leaders are involved. The press is skeptical if the Governor is involved, but they rarely question the academics."

• "The more state leaders forget there are other things to meddle with, the better."

• "What about Texas Southern University or Prairie View? Would it be possible to give some attention and money to these two schools? Is it right that vending machines at TSU are placed behind locked gates?? That dorm rooms here sometimes have problems with rodents, mold etc.? Yet the Regents at TSU don't really ask their President for updates on these issues? When was the last time the Governor visited Prairie View? Considering its proximity to College Station you might think he could spare some time to visit there! His Chancellor has certainly visited (thank the lord for John Sharp!)"

• "Nobody wants to be in the spotlight like this."

Enlarge Todd Wiseman

.

Should Texas senators confirm the governor’s three newest appointees to the UT Board of Regents?

• "Voting not to confirm would be symbolic -- Perry would find a way to get his stooges onto the board anyway -- but would be an important statement of protest against Perry's interference."

• "If they don't confirm them, won't the Governor just make recess appointments? Best solution is to past a 'best practices' governance bill re and then confirm them."

• "Doesn't really matter. He can wait the Senate out."

• "Are they qualified candidates who care about higher education in Texas and the direction of the UT System? If so, then yes. Anything less, then no."

• "Why punish the innocent?"

• "Certainly not the Texas A&M alumni."

• "Knife cuts both ways. Meddling is not good for executive or legislative."

Our thanks to this week's participants: Gene Acuna, Cathie Adams, Brandon Aghamalian, Jenny Aghamalian, Victor Alcorta, Clyde Alexander, George Allen, Jay Arnold, Charles Bailey, Tom Banning, Don Baylor, Dave Beckwith, Allen Blakemore, Tom Blanton, Hugh Brady, Chris Britton, Andy Brown, David Cabrales, Marc Campos, Thure Cannon, Snapper Carr, Janis Carter, William Chapman, Elna Christopher, Harold Cook, Kevin Cooper, Beth Cubriel, Randy Cubriel, Denise Davis, Hector De Leon, June Deadrick, Roberto DeHoyos, Tom Duffy, David Dunn, Richard Dyer, Jeff Eller, Jack Erskine, Jon Fisher, Wil Galloway, Neftali Garcia, Norman Garza, Dominic Giarratani, Bruce Gibson, Stephanie Gibson, Eric Glenn, Kinnan Golemon, Jim Grace, John Greytok, Clint Hackney, Anthony Haley, Wayne Hamilton, Bill Hammond, Adam Haynes, Susan Hays, John Heasley, Steve Holzheauser, Laura Huffman, Deborah Ingersoll, Cal Jillson, Jason Johnson, Bill Jones, Mark Jones, Robert Jones, Lisa Kaufman, Robert Kepple, Tom Kleinworth, Ramey Ko, Sandy Kress, Nick Lampson, Pete Laney, Dick Lavine, Leslie Lemon, Myra Leo, Richard Levy, Ruben Longoria, Homero Lucero, Matt Mackowiak, Luke Marchant, Dan McClung, Parker McCollough, Scott McCown, Mike McKinney, Robert Miller, Bee Moorhead, Mike Moses, Steve Murdock, Keir Murray, Nelson Nease, Keats Norfleet, Pat Nugent, Nef Partida, Gardner Pate, Robert Peeler, Tom Phillips, Allen Place, Kraege Polan, Gary Polland, Jay Pritchard, Ted Melina Raab, Bill Ratliff, Karen Reagan, Tim Reeves, Patrick Reinhart, Kim Ross, Jeff Rotkoff, Grant Ruckel, Andy Sansom, Jim Sartwelle, Stan Schlueter, Christopher Shields, Martha Smiley, Todd Smith, Larry Soward, Leonard Spearman, Dennis Speight, Bryan Sperry, Jason Stanford, Bob Strauser, Colin Strother, Tom Suehs, Michael Quinn Sullivan, Sherry Sylvester, Jay Thompson, Russ Tidwell, Gerard Torres, Trey Trainor, Ware Wendell, Ken Whalen, Darren Whitehurst, Christopher Williston, Seth Winick, Alex Winslow, Peck Young, Angelo Zottarelli.

Enlarge Todd Wiseman

Monday, April 1

• House Elections, 10:30 a.m.
• Senate Nominations, 11 a.m.
• House Government Efficiency and Reform, 2 p.m.
• House International Trade and Intergovernmental Affairs, 2 p.m.
• House Investments and Financial Services, 2 p.m.
• House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence, 2 p.m.
• House Land and Resource Management, 2 p.m.
• House Pensions, 2 p.m.
• House Ways and Means, 2 p.m.
• Senate State Affairs, 2 p.m.
• Senate Open Government, 2 p.m.
• House Economic and Small Business Development Subcommittee on Manufacturing, 2:30 p.m.
• Senate Agriculture, Rural Affairs and Homeland Security, 2:30 p.m.

Tuesday, April 2

• House Appropriations Subcommittee on Budget Transparency and Reform, 8 a.m.
• House Natural Resources, 8 a.m.
• House Transportation, 8 a.m.
• Senate Business and Commerce, 8 a.m.
• Senate Government Organization, 8 a.m.
• Senate Administration, 8:30 a.m.
• Senate Education, 8:30 a.m.
• Senate Health and Human Services, 9 a.m.
• Senate Natural Resources, 9 a.m.
• House Criminal Jurisprudence, 10:30 a.m.
• House Human Services, 10:30 a.m.
• House Licensing and Administrative Procedures, noon
• House Select Committee on Transparency in State Agency Operations, 1 p.m.
• House Business and Industry, 1:30 p.m.
• Senate Criminal Justice, 1:30 p.m.
• Senate Jurisprudence, 1:30 p.m.
• House Insurance, 2 p.m.
• House Public Education, 2 p.m.
• House Ways and Means, 2 p.m.
• Senate Finance Subcommittee on Fiscal Matters, 2 p.m.

Wednesday, April 3

• House Agriculture and Livestock, 8 a.m.
• House Economic and Small Business Development, 8 a.m.
• House Homeland Security and Public Safety, 8 a.m.
• House Public Health, 8 a.m.
• House Special Purpose Districts, 8 a.m.
• Senate Economic Development, 8 a.m.
• Senate Transportation, 8 a.m.
• Senate Higher Education, 9 a.m.
• House Urban Affairs, 10:30 a.m.
• House State Affairs, 1:30 p.m.
• Senate Intergovernmental Relations, 1:30 p.m.
• Senate Veteran Affairs and Military Installations, 1:30 p.m.
• House Corrections, 2 p.m.
• House Culture, Recreation and Tourism, 2 p.m.
• House Energy Resources, 2 p.m.
• House Higher Education, 2 p.m.

Thursday, April 4

• House Defense and Veterans' Affairs, 8 a.m.
• Senate Open Government, 1:30 p.m.

Enlarge Gage Skidmore

As Texans, we take great pride in our state. We have a long history rich in tradition, innovation and compassion. Over the course of our state’s history, we’ve weathered natural disasters, tragedies, and some of the worst conditions of the Great Depression. At every turn, Texans have shown great character, lending a helping hand to their neighbors and caring for the neediest among us.

Today, we must continue that spirit of compassion when it comes to the health-care needs of low-income children, the disabled and those who need assistance the most. But instead of expanding a system that is already failing them, as Obamacare would have us do, we must takes steps to strengthen our health-care safety-net programs in a way that offers the poorest Texans a higher level of quality health care and access to the physicians and medical care they need.

Don’t just take my word for it. In a 2012 survey conducted by the Texas Medical Association, a large majority of Texas physicians agreed that Medicaid was “broken” and should not be used as “a mechanism to reduce the uninsured.” Indeed, there are much better ways to expand insurance coverage than simply pushing more Texans into an already dysfunctional and unaffordable program.

Supporters of the Obamacare Medicaid expansion generally make three arguments: (1) It would provide Texas with “free money,” because the federal government would be picking up the tab. (2) It would reduce the financial strain on hospitals struggling with excessive emergency-room visits. (3) It would guarantee quality health coverage for many of the uninsured.

None of these arguments stand up to close scrutiny. 


Take the issue of federal funding. It is true that, under Obamacare, Washington (i.e., U.S. taxpayers) would temporarily cover the full cost of insuring newly eligible Texas Medicaid patients. Thus, supporters of the expansion insist that Gov. Rick Perry is turning down free money.

However, the promise of free money for the newly eligible Medicaid population won’t last forever: As of 2020, the federal government would be paying for only 90 percent of the expansion — and even that isn’t guaranteed, especially given our nation’s serious fiscal woes. I have no doubt that Washington will face increasing pressure to shift more of the burden onto the states.

In short: The Obamacare Medicaid expansion would impose significant long-term costs on Texas taxpayers.

Would it help hospitals deal with the soaring costs of ER care? In fact, it might do just the opposite. Many of the folks who go to ERs for non-emergency care are actually enrolled in the Medicaid program. And while the cost of uncompensated care for the uninsured is a real concern, health care expert Avik Roy notes that “Medicaid’s underpayment of providers is a far greater economic problem for most hospitals.”

You might be wondering why so many Medicaid patients would go to the ER for routine care when they have health insurance. The reason is simple: Medicaid offers poor-quality coverage. Because the program reimburses providers at such low rates, an ever-growing share of Medicaid beneficiaries cannot easily find doctors or dentists who will accept their insurance. (We’ve recently seen a number of lawsuits brought by providers and patients against their state Medicaid programs over low-reimbursement policies.) According to the 2012 TMA survey, more than two-thirds of Texas physicians are turning away at least some of the Medicaid patients who come to their offices, because they cannot afford to treat them.

No question, we have to bring ER costs under control. But the answer is not to expand a program that has exacerbated the very problem we’re trying to fix.

Rather than ask states to expand their existing Medicaid programs, the federal government should give each state much greater flexibility to design a program that is able to meet the needs of its residents. What works best in Texas may not work best in New York, and vice versa. States should receive a defined amount of Medicaid funds from Washington with very few strings attached so they can design innovative programs that provide quality care for their poorest and most vulnerable residents. 

Again: We all want to make health care more affordable and more accessible. In my view, the best way to achieve those goals is to empower patients, increase transparency, eliminate government pricing distortions and boost private competition — not to place more Texans in a program that is already broken. Weakening Medicaid would be a profound disservice to those Texans who depend on our safety net the most. 


U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, the Republican whip, is a member of the Senate Finance Committee.

Enlarge Ross Ramsey

In his first inaugural address, the Great Communicator Ronald Reagan said that “government is not the solution, government is the problem,” and set out the conservative message that would prevail in Republican circles for the next 30 years.

Flying in the face of the Great Society and of the New Deal that preceded it, Reagan tapped into deeply held distrust of “big government” solutions and convinced people to reject the notion that government programs could help improve people’s lives.

Reagan’s philosophy claimed that government programs hindered the capacity of individuals to achieve their own successes. For the conservative movement, the social safety net espoused by Democrats was actually a set of ties that bind. This anti-government rhetoric resonated like a bell with many Americans.

Over the intervening decades we have seen this idea claim an increasing share of a diminishing market. Minorities and immigrant communities simply don’t see government as a hindrance. But according to Dr. Stephen Klinberg’s research for the Kinder Institute of Urban Research at Rice University, attitudes about government among Harris County’s racial and ethnic groups differ starkly.

Whether it’s government regulations, climate change or the death penalty, there is generally a 15-20 point difference between Anglo and minority views on the role of government. That is the crux of the problem for Republicans — one of their central organizing themes is rapidly growing irrelevant to a very relevant constituency. Increasing divides within the party on social and cultural issues complicate the problem.

In 2003, Texas became became a majority-minority state — one where Anglos no longer constitute a majority. Although this is not reflected in the voting population, that is likely to change in the years to come.

We hear much about the need for the modern Republican Party to attract emerging groups of voters (notably Hispanics, but also Asians) or risk political death. But how will that even be possible when studies suggest that the vast majority of this crucial voting bloc utterly rejects the founding premise of the modern conservative movement? A political party enamored of curtailing the role of government faces an extremely difficult task convincing people who don’t view government as the source of the problem.

Yet the conservative messaging has stayed the same. From Ronald Reagan to Rick Perry to Ted Cruz, conservatism’s consistent theme is that government is the problem, government must be tamed and government must be starved. This echoes some of the deeper principles of what it means to be conservative, but the new majority just doesn’t believe it.

Republican branding and messaging aren’t the issue — it’s the thinking that underpins it. The new Texas majority has a different world view and a different perspective on the issues.

Hence, immigration reform is needed, but will not help the Republican brand. In the short term, yes, many Republicans already recognize the need to solve the immigration problem. But in the long run, support for comprehensive immigration and a pathway to citizenship is not going to close the gap between Republicans and Latinos. Much is made out of the supposedly conservative social views of Latinos and Asians, that they are a natural constituency of the Republican Party. That doesn’t take into account this core difference in world view.

The only reliably Republican Latino group is Cubans. Why? Because their experience with the Castro regime and Communism is so fresh. They view government as the problem, because in Cuba, it is. Similarly, in the Asian community, Vietnamese Americans who fled the North Vietnamese Communist regime are likewise fairly Republican.

As the GOP looks toward the future, it needs to find philosophical ways of appealing to groups without relying on an anti-government sentiment. Loudly proclaiming opposition to government might work in local Republican primaries, but where do you go in the general election in the coming years, especially with an electorate with a rapidly changing complexion?

The Latino and Asian demographic in Texas didn’t just grow over the last decade — it boomed at a nearly unprecedented pace. As of the 2010 census, the Hispanic or Latino community had increased 41.8 percent in a decade and the Asian population had increased of 78.4 percent. That reflects growth that is not just big, but fast, and immigration alone does not account for this.

In the current battle for Texas Medicaid expansion, Perry is willing to disregard 1.5 million working uninsured Texans. The bulk of them are Latinos, blacks and Asians. If their perception is that the Texas Republican Party doesn’t care about them, it could have something to do with a Republican governor willing to deny them access to health care coverage. His justification? The favored argument of the American right: It’s a flawed federal government program.

Reagan also said, “Once you begin a great movement, there's no telling where it will end.” The question for the GOP is whether the anti-government sentiment in Texas started to come to an end?

Mustafa Tameez is the founder and managing director of Outreach Strategists LLC, a communications and public affairs firm based in Houston.

Debate over the balance between rigor and flexibility in high school graduation requirements dominated the House’s debate over legislation that would significantly change the courses students need for a high school diploma. It would lower the number of math and science courses required for graduation, and would also cut the number of tests students are required to take.

The Texas House approved legislation that would use $2 billion to start funding water projects in the state. House Bill 4, by state Rep. Allan Ritter, R-Nederland, would create a water bank that would offer loans for projects like new water reservoirs, pipelines and conservation projects. Only two members voted against the bill, which is now on its way to the Senate. 

University of Texas System regents chairman Gene Powell responded to a strongly worded letter from Texas senators, saying that a decision on how to proceed with a review of UT-Austin's law school foundation would be made in the "next few weeks." A majority of Texas senators signed a letter calling the UT System's planned review of the foundation unnecessary.

After peaking in September, applications for deferred action have dropped off dramatically. Immigration attorneys think most eligible undocumented immigrants are in a wait-and-see mode amid the federal immigration reform debate.

Family members of Christine Morton and Debra Baker filled a Tom Green County courtroom with tearful hugs and relieved smiles on Wednesday after a jury found Mark Alan Norwood guilty of murder. Norwood, 58, received an automatic life sentence after the jury decided he was guilty of the 1986 killing. Michael Morton spent nearly 25 years in prison wrongfully convicted of his wife's murder. He was released from prison and exonerated in 2011 after DNA testing linked his wife’s death and the murder of another woman to Norwood. Morton called the verdict a "mixed bag."

State Rep. Ron Reynolds, D-Missouri City, walked into the Montgomery County Jail on Tuesday morning to be booked on two counts of barratry. In a statement, he maintained his innocence.  His arrest came a day after authorities raided his Houston law office, the offices of seven other area attorneys and two chiropractic practices for their alleged involvement in a quarter-million-dollar kickback scheme. Last month, the Harris County district attorney dropped similar charges against Reynolds, a personal injury attorney.

They might be fighting in other forums, but Gov. Rick Perry and University of Texas-Austin President Bill Powers will be on the same stage Monday, roasting Rep. Sylvester Turner, D-Houston, to raise money for the Texas Legislative Internship Program.

Speaker Joe Straus hired Lindsey Howe Parham as a senior advisor in his political office. She was an advisor and top aide to former U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison for the last 20 years and is, like Straus, a Republican from San Antonio. She'll work on organization and fundraising for Texans for Joe Straus.

Former legislative staffer Ricardo Lopez-Guerra is joining Strategic Public Affairs; he’ll remain in Austin, consulting clients of the Houston-based firm.

Gov. Rick Perry appointed:

• Victor Vandergriff of Arlington to the Texas Transportation Commission and reappointed Jeff Austin III to another term on that board. Vandergriff is an attorney and businessman and has been chairman of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board. Austin is vice chairman of Austin Bank in Jacksonville.

• Hays County Tax Assessor-Collector Luanne Caraway, Robert “Barney” Barnwell III of Magnolia, and Raymond Palacios Jr. of El Paso to the board of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles. Barnwell, president of Universal Natural Gas, and Palacios, president of Bravo Chevrolet Cadillac, are being reappointed.

• Thomas Anderson of Richmond and Danny Osterhout of Andrews to the Commission on Human Rights. Both are reappointments. Anderson is human resources director at Houston Community College. Osterhout is vice president of Magneto Service and Supply.

• Mike Novak of San Antonio, president and CEO of the Novak Group, to the Texas Facilities Commission.

• MacGregor Stephenson as his deputy chief of staff and Rich Parsons as deputy director of communications. Stephenson has been at the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. Parsons, a former TV reporter, was most recently the spokesman for the Texas Secretary of State.