Rick Perry vs World

18 January 2007

Ouch

Congress is still engaging in the high-stakes derby of committee assignments, with lawmakers scrambling to get on the panels of their choice. And sometimes not necessarily of their choice.

Though Lampson's 22nd District isn't primarily a farming area, the Democratic leadership has assigned him to the Agriculture Committee, to go along with his postings on the Science and Technology Committee and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

"It's interesting because I don't have a big ag base," said Lampson, the grandson of Fort Bend County farmers.

First Lampson got passed over for Appropriations, now they're shuffling him to whatever committee has an opening.

Doesn't look like House Democrats have much confidence in Lampson being re-elected. I would've thought they'd at least pretend.

Posted by Evan @ 01/18/07 06:15 PM | Comments (0)

Hrm

Wilmington News Journal:

Amtrak would receive $19.2 billion under bipartisan legislation unveiled Tuesday, kicking off a new chapter in long-running debate over how to fix the beleaguered passenger railroad.

The legislation by Sens. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., and Trent Lott, R-Miss., would provide $3.2 billion per year over six years. Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., and Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., are co-sponsors of the bill.

In recent years, Congress has given the quasi-private railroad about $1.2 billion even as some critics have said Amtrak is so poorly managed it should be turned over to the private sector.

...

The bill introduced Tuesday has 10 Senate co-sponsors: Carper and Biden; Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.; Arlen Specter, R-Pa.; Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas; Byron Dorgan, D-N.D.; Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.; Richard Durbin, D-Ill.; Richard Burr, R-N.C.; and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine.

Why is Kay Bailey sponsoring this? Isn't Amtrak's service in Texas horrible? I mean, the Eastern seaboard senators love Amtrak because it provides them an easy, cushy commute to DC. But I don't understand Hutchison's sponsorship, unless she's getting something out of it on another issue.

Posted by Evan @ 01/18/07 06:09 PM | Comments (0)

12 January 2007

Draft Fred?

A couple months after me, Professor Bainbridge wants to hop on board the Fred Thompson for president bandwagon.

Posted by Evan @ 01/12/07 01:04 AM | Comments (5)

Ron Paul to run for president.

Dr. Ron Paul, from Texas' 22nd district, has announced a run for President. No word yet as to whether he will give up his congressional seat or not.

Paul ran in 1988 as a the Libertarian Party nominee, but he's running as a Republican this time.

Kronberg reports Mark Henry as a name that's interested. I bet Kyle Janek will get in the race if the seat really opens up, and I think he'd probably be the clear favorite.

Posted by Evan @ 01/12/07 12:04 AM | Comments (1)

09 January 2007

Texas GOP, we have a problem

As the recent speaker race indicated, the Texas GOP has a cultural problem: it's okay to vote for the Democrat's choice for leadership, as long as that person is a Republican. Although Republicans in this state labored towards the majority for a time spanning 3 centuries, we're not doing very well in electing our own leadership. It's time for that to change, and the party leadership needs to be the ones to do it.

The Texas Republican Party is perpetually debating how to force its elected officials to stick to the platform. It is, frankly, a very silly notion. People don't run for office so that they can rubberstamp whatever a small portion of the party grassroots comes up with as the party platform. The very notion of a republic is that good men and women are supposed to do what they think is right for the Republic. [You've been watching Rome, haven't you?-- ed. Yup!] Or note that the Harris County GOP officially backed Dan Patrick's call to end the filibuster in the Texas Senate. It obviously wasn't going to happen. [As people skeptical of the government's halcyonic abilities, I thought we were supposed to like it when it's harder for the government to pass bills?]

Instead, we should focus on a bigger problem, that the party can do something about: Republicans letting Democrats decide which Republican becomes the leader.

Go back to January 2001, when State Senator David Sibley had the backing of most -- if not all, Ratliff excepted -- of the Senate Republican membership. The chamber was controlled 16-15 by Republicans, leading observers to assume Sibley would be made the next Lieutenant Governor of Texas. [Perry had left the Lt. Gov's seat open when he became governor following the 2000 election.]

Nope. Bill Ratliff ("I am a Republican because I agree with the Republicans at least 51 percent of the time") galvanized Democratic support and was elected Lt. Gov. 16-15, because of his Democratic support.

Fast forward to today, when the choice of the vast majority of House Republicans (~85% or so) nearly lost.

This isn't about David Sibley, Bill Ratliff, Jim Pitts, Brian McCall or Tom Craddick. It's about Republicans being beholden to Democrats for their leadership post. It hasn't been too bad so far, but cancers metastasize when left unchecked.

It's about the fact that Democrats are forcing their elected officials to hew to the party line. The House Democratic Caucus even requires its members to vote for a Democratic candidate for speaker, if there is one. Plus, the Texas Democrats are purging any of their members who work with Republicans. [Note to the press corps: if Republicans were purging our own moderates as effectively and thoroughly as the Democrats are, would we be reading lots of editorials and news articles about how the zealots were taking over the party? Y'all freak out about Leininger, but miss the real story.]

Look, I'd be happy if the "good old days" of leadership elections were still here. But they aren't. Democrats have effectively changed the rules. Republicans have two options: adapt to the new way or let the Democrats pick our leaders.

Posted by Evan @ 01/09/07 10:00 PM | Comments (2)

Tom Craddick re-elected Speaker

Tom Craddick was re-elected Speaker this afternoon by a vote of 121-27. In reality, the vote was much closer, with Fort Worth Rep. Charlie Geren's amendment to an amendment in favor of a secret ballot being defeated 68-80. With the writing then on the wall, the House passed the rules for the election 96-51.

Apparently the 68-80 vote will be made public, but it has not been yet. So Pitts came up somewhere around 7 votes short. Not exactly seven, as some Craddick supporters -- like Joe Straus -- voted for secret ballots, I presume, based on their public statements.

You know who looks silliest? Patricia Harless and Thomas Latham, both House Republican freshman, who rescinded their pledges to Craddick on January 3rd, which was about the time it was starting to look like the Craddick challengers would come up short.

I guess the new Capitol parlor game is this: who will be appointed chair of Appropriations?

Posted by Evan @ 01/09/07 08:34 PM | Comments (2)

Today's legislative happenings

If you're looking for a place to follow the speaker race right now, the Chron's politics blog is it right now. They're liveblogging the first day of the Texas legislature.

Posted by Evan @ 01/09/07 01:36 PM | Comments (0)

The vagaries of the federal tax code

Gary Martin:

Members of both parties introduced legislation Friday that would allow residents of seven states, including Texas, to permanently deduct sales taxes on their federal income tax returns.

Congress, which initially approved the deduction for the 2004 and 2005 tax years, extended it in December for two more years.

Rep. Kevin Brady, R-The Woodlands, joined Rep. Brian Baird, D-Wash., on a bill introduced in the House that would make the deduction permanent.

...

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, filed a bill Thursday that includes a provision to make the sales tax deduction permanent, something she said was a legislative priority for 2007.

That legislation was co-sponsored Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.

Our representatives should really not come home if they don't get this made permanent. Do whatever you have to do; it's a basic issue of fairness to Texas.

Of course, local and state taxes of any kind really should NOT be deductible from federal income taxation, because doing so unfairly penalizes low-tax states while incentivizing higher state taxes. It's basically a transfer of wealth from the South to the Northeast.

Plus, local and state tax deductions skew heavily to the wealthy. My intuition would be that it skews towards the wealthy in total percentages greater than any income tax cuts. Just a guess, but I feel confident saying it. Don't tell it to Chuck Schumer though, he loves the local and state tax deduction.

And really, if City A decides to tax itself to pay for a big new shiny pro sports stadium, and City B doesn't, why are we making City B disadvantaged tax-wise? It makes no sense. But then, sense is often in short supply when it comes to Ways and Means committees.

Posted by Evan @ 01/09/07 01:14 AM | Comments (0)

Mitt Romney's big day

Wow.

Ex-MA Gov. Mitt Romney (R) said he was "blown away" by the $6.5 million his friends and family raised and pledged toward a presidential campaign today, a figure that may shoot a bright flare in the direction of Romney's potential 2008 rivals, most notably Sen. John McCain and Ex-NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

Fundamentally, the telephone-a-thon Romney led here today demonstrats [sic] the breadth of his personal network of supporters and associates

South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint is also planning to endorse Romney.

$6.5M! In a day! Wow! First tier Democratic presidential candidates raised less than that in quarters in 2004. In fact, I want to say that in Q2 2003 John Edwards raised the most money of the Democratic contenders, and it was about $6.5M.

I confess, I have long laughed at the idea that Romney was going to be a serious presidential contender. So, I'll eat some crow: it's been very apparent for at least a few months that Romney is probably the second most likely person to win the GOP nomination (McCain is first). He just has so many networks to raise money: Harvard Law, Harvard MBA, Mormons, consulting (was partner at Bain), venture capital (founded Bain Capital), plus the 2002 Olympics.

He also just has such an incredible bio -- slightly overly gushed here, and he looks presidential. In fact, I'd sorta figured that I'd back McCain (after years of figuring that I'd never back McCain), but I may switch to Romney. I don't really see McCain as president. He's a maverick, but that's much better suited to the Senate, where he doesn't have to lead and build consensus. But I don't know. Still early. We'll see.

Posted by Evan @ 01/09/07 01:00 AM | Comments (2)

"Yeah I'd jump off a bridge."

Since everyone else is linking to it, I guess I will too. Here's the video of Craddick's folks going to dinner.

The same user also posted just the Democrats going in. That seems to support my thesis that it's an anti-Craddick Dem.

Posted by Evan @ 01/09/07 12:05 AM | Comments (0)

[Previous 10 Entries] [Next 10 Entries]

SITE MENU

+ Rick Perry vs World
+ About Me

+ Archives

+ Email:
perryvsworld* at *gmail dot com

ADVERTISING

SYNDICATION

DISCLAIMER

Rick Perry vs. World is powered by Nucleus.

Site design and Nucleus customization by Kevin Whited.